Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/caseofchristchurOOchri 


L r  *  "</>(/.  >rs, 


CASE 


CHKIST    CHUKCH, 


GERMANTOWiV,  PHILADELPHIA. 


BEING   A  EEPORT   OF   THE   PROCEEDINGS   BEFORE   THE 


BOARD   OF  PRESBYTERS, 


IN    KEFEKENCE  TO   THE    APPLICATION   OP 


A  Majority  of  the  Vestry  of  said  Church, 


DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  DASTORAL  CONNECTION. 


PIT  IL  ADELPHI  A: 

PUBLISHED    BY    KING    &    BAIBD,    PRINTERS, 
6U7    AND    009    bANSOM    STREET. 

1872. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1872,  by 

KING    &    BAIRD, 
In  the  Office  of  the   Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


CONTENTS. 


Brief  History  of  the  Case, S 

Amended  Canon  of  1871, 6 

Correspondence  in  reference  to  the  apijoiutmeut  of  a  Board  of  Pres- 
byters,         9 

Pledge  of  Vestry  to  ahide  by  the  decision, 11 

First  Day's  Proceedings, 13 

Statement  of  the  Vestry, 14 

Secokd  Day's  Proceedings, 46 

Third  Day's  Proceedings, 46 

Answer  on  behalf  of  the  Rector, 47 

Appendix  to  Answer.  Containing  : 

A.  Letter  of  Beekman  Potter,  the  originator  of  Christ  Church,.  "J 6 

B.  Statement  of  Joseph  A.  Schaeffei", 8t 

C.  Statement  of  N.  K.  Ployd, 83 

D.  Statements  of  persons  -whose  names  are  attached  to  the 

paper  asking  Dr.  Rumney  to  resign,  .         .         .         .84 

E.  List  of  the  clergymen  who  have  officiated  at  Christ  Church, 

Germantown,  during  the  time  of  the  present  Rector,        .  93 

F.  Statistics  of  Sunday  School, 94 

G.  Letter  from  the  vestry  and  congregation  at  White  Puiins,     .  95 

H.  W.  C.  Houston's  letter  of  September  20th,    ....  98 

I.    Bishop  Eastburn's  decision, 99 

(3) 


Fourth  Day's  Proceedings, Ill 

Supplemental  statemeut  of  Vestry, -.  113 

Supplemental  answer, 123 

Argument  of  Lewis  D.  Vail,  Esq., 127 

"  of  Rev.  J.  Andrews  Harris, 148 

"  of  George  M.  Conarroe,  Esq., 165 

"  William  S.  Price,  Esq., 187 

Fifth  Day's  Proceedings,  .         .        .        .  - 198 

Decision  of  the  Board  of  Presbyters,      .        .        .     *,        .        .        .  198 


HISTORY   OF   THE    CASE. 


PRELIMIITARY   STATEMENT. 

Christ  Church,  Germantown,  was  organized  in  1852,  and 
was  incorporated  in  1853.  In  the  year  1854  the  Rev.  A. 
B.  Atkins  was  elected  Rector.  In  June,  1869,  having  pre- 
viously had  differences  with  some  of  his  congregation,  he 
resigned.  The  Rev.  J.  Newton  Stanger  was  called  to  fill 
the  rectorship  temporarily,  and  remained  for  nearly  a  year. 
On  September  7th,  1869,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rumney,  among 
others,  was  nominated  as  Rector.  In  December,  1869,  the 
Rev.  AV.  S.  Langford  was  unanimously  elected  Rector,  but 
declined  to  come.  In  February,  1870,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rumney 
was  unanimously  elected.  He  visited  the  parish,  and  in  the 
following  April,  signified  his  acceptance.  On  May  1st,  1870, 
he  came  to  Germantown,  and  was  very  favorably  received. 
Soon  after  the  Yestry  election  of  1871,  a  committee  of  the 
Vestry,  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Rector  on  the  well 
being  of  the  parish,  insisted  that  he  should  resign.  No 
charges  were  made  against  him,  or  any  grounds  alleged, 
except  that  he  was  not  sufficiently  "Low  Church."  A 
majority  of  the  congregation  desired  him  not  to  resign. 
He  declined  to  resign.  In  June,  1871,  Bishop  Stevens, 
after  hearing  an  ex  "parte  presentation  of  the  case,  recom- 
mended his  resignation.  A  few  weeks  afterwards,  after 
hearing  the  other  side,  he  changed  his  opinion.  On  Sep- 
tember 30th,  1871,  the  Bishop  wrote  a  letter  sustaining 
the  Rector.     In  October,  1871,  at  the  General  Convention 

(5) 


of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
sitting  in  Baltimore,  Canon  4,  Title  II,  of  the  General 
Canons  of  the  Church,  as  amended,  entitled  "Of  differ- 
ences between  Ministers  and  their  Congregations,  and  of 
the  dissolution  of  a  Pastoral  connection,"  was  passed,  to 
go  into  effect  on  January  1st,  1872.  On  Monday,  January 
2d,  1872,  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry  made  application, 
in  the  absence  of  the  Bishop,  to  the  Pev.  Dr.  Morton, 
President  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of 
Pennsylvania,  for  the  appointment  of  a  Board  of  Reference 
under  the  Canon.  The  correspondence  which  ensued,  and 
the  proceedings  and  arguments  before  this  Board,  will  show 
the  constitution  of  the  tribunal,  and  the  positions  taken  on 
each  side. 

The  amended  Canon  of  1871,  is  as  follows: 


CAK'O^  IV. 

Of  Diferences  Between  Ministers  and  their  Congregations^  and 
of  the  Dissolution  of  a  Pastoral  Connection. 

§  I.  In  case  of  a  controversy  between  any  Rector  or  As- 
sistant Minister  of  any  church  or  parish,  and  the  vestry  or 
congregation  of  such  church  or  parish,  which  cannot  be 
settled  by  themselves,  the  parties,  or  either  of  them,  may 
make  application  to  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese,  who  shall 
thereupon  notify  each  of  the  contesting  parties  to  furnish 
him  with  the  names  of  three  presbyters  of  the  diocese.  The 
Bishop  shall  add  to  them  the  names  of  three  other  presby- 
ters, and  the  whole  number  shall  then  be  reduced  to  five  by 
striking  off  the  names  alternately  by  each  of  the  contesting 
parties.     Should  either  party  refuse  or  neglect  to  name  three 


presbyters  or  to  strike  from  the  list  as  aforesaid,  the  Bishop 
shall  act  for  the  parties  so  refusing  or  neglecting.  And  in 
all  the  proceedings  aforesaid  the  vestry  or  congregation,  as 
the  case  may  be,  shall  be  represented  by  some  layman  of  their 
number  duly  selected  by  them  for  the  purpose.  Provided^ 
That  the  party  or  parties  applying  as  above  shall  first  give 
the  Bishop  satisfactory  assurance  of  compliance  with  v/hat- 
ever  may  be  required  of  them  as  the  iiual  issue  of  such  pro- 
ceedings. 

§  11.  The  five  presbyters  thus  designated  shall  constitute  a 
Board  of  Eeference  to  consider  such  controversy,  and  if  after 
hearing  such  allegations  and  proofs  as  the  parties  may  sub- 
mit, a  majority  of  the  presbyters  shall  be  of  o[iinion  that 
there  is  no  hope  of  a  favorable  termination  of  such  contro- 
versy, and  that  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between  such 
Eector  or  Assistant  Minister  and  his  parish  or  congregation 
is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace  of  the  church,  and  promote 
its  prosperity,  such  presbyters  shall  recommend  to  the  Bishop 
that  such  minister  shall  be  required  to  relinquish  his  con- 
nection with  such  church  or  parish,  on  such  conditions  as 
may  appear  to  them  proper  and  reasonable.  ^ 

§  III.  If  any  Rector  or  Assistant  Minister  shall  refuse  to 
comply  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Bishop  and  pres- 
byters, the  Bishop  shall  proceed  to  fort^id  him  the  exercise  of 
any  ministerial  functions  within  the  diocese  until  he  shall 
retract  his  refusal,  or  if  the  vestry  or  congregation  shall 
refuse  to  comply  with  any  such  recommendation,  they  shall 
not  be  allowed  any  representation  in  l^he  Diocesan  Convention 
until  they  shall  have  retracted  their  refusah 

§  IV.  When  there  is  no  Bishop,  the  President  of  the 
Standing  Committee  of  the  diocese  shall  perform  all  the 
duties  herein  allotted  to  the  Bishop ;  provided  that  he  shall 
not  exercise  any  power  under  the  preceding  third  section 
without  the  aid  and  consent  of  some  Bishop  of  this  Church. 


8 

§  V.  The  preceding  sections  of  this  canon  shall  not  be  ob- 
ligatory upon  any  diocese  which  has  made,  or  shall  hereafter 
make,  provision  by  canon,  upon  this  subject. 

§  VI.  In  case  a  minister,  who  has  been  regularly  institutei 
and  settled  in  a  parish  or  church,  be  dismissed  by  such  parish 
or  church  without  the  concurrrence  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Au- 
thority of  the  diocese,  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  such 
parish  or  church  shall  have  no  right  to  a  representation  in 
the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  until  they  have  made  such 
satisfaction  as  the  Convention  may  require.  But  the  min- 
ister thus  dismissed  shall  retain  his  right  to  a  seat  in  the 
Convention,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Authority  of  the  diocese.  And  no  minister  shall  leave  his 
congregation  against  their  will,  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  Ecclesiastical  Authority  aforesaid  ;  and  if  he  shall  leave 
them  without  such  concurrence,  he  shall  not  be  allowed  to 
take  his  seat  in  any  Convention  of  this  Church,  or  be  eligible 
into  any  church  or  parish  until  he  shall  have  made  such  sat- 
isfaction as  the  Ecclesiastical  Authority  of  the  diocese  may 
require  ;  but  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  such  parish  or 
church  shall  not  be  thereby  deprived  of  its  right  to  a  repre- 
sentation in  the  Convention  of  the  diocese. 

§  VII.  In  case  of  the  regular  and  canonical  dissolution  of 
the  connection  between  a  minister  and  his  congregation,  the 
Bishop,  or  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  the  Standing  Committee, 
shall  direct  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention  to  record  the 
same.  But  if  the  dissolution  of  the  coimection  betw^een  a 
minister  and  his  congregation  be  not  regular  or  canonical, 
the  Bishop  or  Standing  Committee  shall  lay  the  same  before 
the  Convention  of  the  diocese,  in  order  that  the  above-men- 
tioned penalties  may  take  effect. 

§  VIII.  This  canon  shall  not  be  obligatory  in  those  dio- 
ceses with  whorie  cauou  iaw-s  or  charter  it  may  interfere. 


The  following  correspondence  was  had  in  reference  to  the 
appointment  of  the  Board  of  Reference. 

Rev.  II.  J.  MoiiTON,  D.  D., 

Prest  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: — The  undersigned  were  appointed  on 
the  second  day  of  Alay  last,  hy  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church, 
Germantown,  a  committee  to  confer  with  the  Rector  on 
"  the  well  hcing  of  the  Parish." 

Personal  interviews  and  communications  having  failed  to 
settle  existing  difficulties  between  the  Rector  and  a  large 
portion  of  the  congregation,  the  enclosed  resolution  was 
passed  by  the  Vestry  on  the  6th  September  last. 

In  performance  of  the  duty  assigned  the  Committee  by 
said  resolution,  they  waited  upon  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese, 
and  ai'ter  fully  explaining  the  whole  case,  were  informed  by 
him  that  Judge  Ludlow's  recent  decision  in  the  St.  Clement's 
Church  case  had  tied  his  hands,  and  he  saw  no  prospect  of 
relief  so  long  as  that  decision  remained  in  force,  unless  the 
General  Convention,  about  to  assemble,  passed  a  canon 
(which  he  thought  they  would  do)  to  meet  just  such  cases 
as  fhat  presented  by  us. 

The  General  Convention  having  taken  action  by  the  pas- 
sage of  Canon  IV.  on  the  Differences  between  Ministers  and 
their  Congregations,  to  go  into  etfect  January  1st,  1872,  we 
now  make  formal  application  to  you  as  President  of  the 
Standing  Committee,  in  the  aljsence  of  the  Bishop,  to  per- 
form such  acts  under  that  canon  as  are  therein  assigned  to 
the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese. 

,     Very  respectfully  yours, 

W.  C.  HOUSTON, 
CTTAS.  SPENCER,     - 
'^  JOSEPH  W.  LEWIS, 

W.  B.  WIIITi^EY,    Committee. 
January  2,  1872. 

The  following  was  enclosed  in  the  foreofoino-  letter : 
At  a  meeting  of  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church,  German- 
town,  held  1st  September,  1871,  the  following  resolution  was 
passed : 

'■'■  Whereas,   The  Vestry   of  Christ    Church,   Germantown, 


10 

desire  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoi^al  relation  of  the  Uev. 
Theo.  8.  Rumney,  D.  D.,  to  said  Church, 

'•''Therefore^  resolved^  That  the  Committee  which  was  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  the  Rector  on  the  well  being  of  the 
Parish,  be  authorized  to  lay  their  report  and  accompanying 
papers  before  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  Diocese, 
asking  their  counsel  and  advice  as  to  the  proper  course  to  be 
pursued. 

Attest— CHARLES  LE  BOUTILLIER. 

Secretary. 

Philadelphia,  January.  IS,  1872. 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney, 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: — Will  j^ou  send  me  the  "assurance" 
of  your  "compliance  with  whatever  may  be  required  of  you, 
as  the  final  issue  of  the  proceedings  "  in  the  case  under  con- 
sideration ? 

Very  respectfully  and  truly  yours, 

HENRY  J.  MORTON", 
President  of  Standing  Committee. 
A  similar  note  was  addressed  to  the  Committee  of   the 
Vestry. 

Rectory  of  Christ  Church, 

Germantown,  January  15,  1872. 
Rev.  Henry  J.  Morton,  D.  D., 

President  of  the  Standing  Committee. 
Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — I  have  to-day  received  your  com- 
munication requesting  the  "assurance"  from  me  of  "com- 
pliance," &c.,  and  now  beg  to  assure  you  that  I  am  ready 
to  comply  with  whatever  may  be  required  of  me  as  the  final 
issue  of  such  proceedings,  according  to  Article  1st  of  Canon 
IV. 

Very  trulv  yours, 

THEODORE  S.  RUMNEY. 

Rev.  H.  J.  Morton,  D.  D., 

President  of  the  Standing  Committee. 
Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — In  accordance  with  the  desire  ex- 
pressed in  your  note  of  13th  inst.,  we  hand  you,  as  annexed, 
the  "  necessary  assurance." 

Very  respectfully, 

W.  C.  HOUSTON, 
Chairman  Committee. 
January  19,  1872. 


11 

"Whereas  there  is  a  controversy  between  the  Vestry  of 
Clirist  Church,  Germantown,  and  the  Rev.  Theodore  S. 
Rumney,  D.  D.,  present  Rector  ot  the  said  Church,  and  the 
Vestry  have  made  application  to  the  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  under  and  in  pur- 
suance of  Canon  IV.,  "  Of  differences  between  Ministers  and 
their  Congregations,  and  of  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral 
connection,"  we  do  hereby  agree  to  j^erform  all  that  may 
be  legally  required  of  us  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  pro- 
visions of  said  Canon. 

W.  C.  HOUSTON, 
CIIAS.  SPENCER, 
JOSEPH  W.  LEWIS, 
W.  B.  WHITNEY,  Committee. 

Philadelphia,  22  January^  1872. 
Rev.  and  Pear  Sir  : — Please  furnish  me  with  the  names  of 
three   Presbyters  of  this  Diocese,  whom  you  will  select  as 
judges  in  the  approaching  investigation. 

Very  truly  yours, 

II.  J.  MORTON. 
President  of  Standing  Committee. 
Rev.  J)r.  Rumney, 

A  similar  note  was  sent  to  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry. 

Rectory  of  Christ  Church, 

Germantown,  January  24, 1872. 
Rev.  Dr.  Morton, 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — T  nominate  "  as  judges  in  the  ap- 
proaching investigation,"  gentlemen  who  have  known  my 
manner  of  life  for  nearly  two  years  last  past : 

The  Rev.  J.  D.  W.  Perry,  Rector  of  Calvary  Church  ;  the 
Rev.    Albra  Wadleigh,  Rector  of  St.  Luke's  Church  ;  the 
Rev.  J.  K  Murphy,  Rector  of  St.  Michael's  Church. 
Respectfully  and  truly  yours, 

THEODORE  S.  RUMNEY. 


12 

Rev.  n.  J.  Morton,  D.  D., 

President  of  Standing  Committee. 
Rkv.  and  Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  jour  note  "to  furnisli 
you  with  the  names  of  three  Presbyters  of  the  Diocese," 
we  name.  Rev.  D.  R.  Goodwin,  D.  D.,  Rev.  D.  S.  Miller, 
D.  D.,  Rev.  Chas.  D.  Cooper,  and  are 

Very  truly  yours, 

W.  C.  HOUSTOK 

Chairman  of  Committee. 
Philadelphia,  February,  1,  1872. 

Philadelphia,  Fibniary  2,  1872. 
Rev.  and  Dear,  Sir: — The  Committee  of  the  Vestry  of 
Christ  Church,  have  named  ;  Rev.  D.  R.  Goodwin,  D,  D., 
Rev.  D.  S.  Miller,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Chas.  D.  Cooper. 

I  nominate.  Rev.  Thos.  C.  Yarnail,  D.  D.,  Rev.  F.  W. 
Beasley,  D.  D.,  Rev.  T.  F.  Da  vies,  D.  D. 

It  is  your  privilege,  as  I  understand,  to  strike  off  two  names 
from  the  list.     Please  do  so,  and  let  me  know  the  result. 
Very  truly  yours, 

HENRY  J.  MORTON, 
President  of  Standing  Committee. 
A  note  of  similar  import  was  sent  to  the  Committee. 
Rectory  of  Christ  Cburch, 

GermantoWxV,  Ftbruary  2,  1872. 
Rpv.  Dr.  Morton, 

Dear  Sir  : — Your  favor,  giving  me  the  names  of  clergy- 
men apptnnted  by  you  and  the  Committee  to  serve  in  the 
coming  investigation,  was  received  to-day. 

In  accordance  with  your  request,  I  strike  off  two  from  the 
list,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cooper. 
Respectfully  and  truly  yours, 

THEODORE  S.  RUMNEY. 

Rev.  II.  J.  Morton,  D.  D., 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — In  reply  to  your  note  of  2d  inst.,  I 
am  requested  by  the  Committee  of  Christ's  Church,  Ger- 
mantown,  to  say  that  they  have  decided  upon  striking 
from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rumney's  list,  the  names  of  Rev.  A. 
Wadleigh,  and  Rev.  J.  K.  Murphy. 

Yery  truly  yours, 
W.  C.  HOUSTON, 

Chairman. 
February  6,  1872. 


FIRST  DAY'S   PROCEEDINGS. 

The  Board  of  Presbyters  held  their  first  meethig  at  the 
Episcopal  Rooms,  JSTo.  708  Wahiut  street,  in  the  City  of 
Philadelphia,  on  Saturday,  February  10th,  1872,  at  12 
o'clock  i\r. 

The  Rev.  Henry  J.  Morton,  D.  D.,  opened  the  meeting 
with  prayer.  lie  then  stated  that  an  application  had  been 
made  to  him  by  a  Committee  of  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church, 
Germantown,  for  the  appointment  of  a  Board  of  Reference; 
that  nine  Presbyters  had  been  named  ;  that  the  names  of  four 
had  been  stricken  off,  in  conformity  with  the  canon,  and  the 
Board  reduced  to  five,  namely  :  Rev.  F.  W.  Beasley,  D.  D., 
Rev.  Thos.  C.  Yarnall,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Daniel  S.  Miller,  D.  D., 
Rev.  Thomas  F.  Davies,  D.  D.,  and  the  Rev.  J.  De  W. 
Perry,  all  of  whom  were  present. 

Rev.  Dr.  Morton  then  withdrew,  and  the  Board  organized 
by  the  selection  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Beasley,  as  chairman,  and 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Perry,  as  secretary. 

After  a  private  consultation  between  the  members  of  the 
Board,  the  chairman  announced  that  they  had  agreed  upon 
the  following,  viz. : — 

1.  That  the  sessions  of  the  Board  should  be  public. 

2.  That  counsel,  clerical  or  lay,  might  be  admitted,  but 
that  each  side  should  be  represented  by  two  persons  only. 

Lewis  D.  Vail  and  William  S.  Price,  Esquires,  appeared  as 
counsel  for  the  Vestry. 

The  Rev.  J.  Andrews  Harris,  appeared  as  clerical  advocate 
for  the  Rector,  and  George  M.  Conarroc,  Esquire,  as  counsel 
for  the  Rector. 

Mr.  Conarroe  asked  what  grounds  were  alleged  by  the 
Vestry  for  a  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  connection,  and 
stated  that  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  at  least  hear  some 
statement  from  the  Vestry,  before  an  answer  could  be 
framed  or  any  issue  raised. 

Mr.  W.  B.  Whitney,  one  of  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry, 
then  read  the  following : — 

(13) 


STAT  E  M  E  NT 

OP   THE 

VESTRY  OF    CHRIST  CHURCH,  GERMANTOWN, 
REGARDING  THEIR  CONTROVERSY 
WITH  THE  RECTOR.       . 


The  Committee  of  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church,  German- 
town,  ap[)ointed  to  lay  before  you  the  circumstances  which 
have  changed  that  once  flourishing  parish  to  a  paralyzed 
condition,  are  of  opinion  that  they  can  best  effect  their 
object  by  a  simple  narrative  of  the  life  of  the  Church  from 
its  foundation  to  the  present  time. 

They  propose  to  show  you  the  causes  which  led  to  the 
foundation  of  the  Church,  the  progress  of  the  Church  under 
its  first  Rector,  and  its  condition  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Rum- 
ney's  election  ;  and  then  to  lay  before  you  the  melancholy 
differences  between  Rector  and  Vestry,  including  the  full 
correspondence  between  them,  concluding  by  a  comparison 
of  the  state  of  the  Church,  as  to  its  contributions  and  its 
parochial  work,  during  the  rectorships  of  Mr.  Atkins  and 
Dr.  Eumney  respectivel3\  Their  aim  being  to  show  the  ex- 
pediency of  a  change  of  Rector  ;  their  means,  the  simplest 
possible  exhibition  of  the  facts. 

First,  then,  they  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing narrative  of  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  prepared 
by  one  of  the  corporators,  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  surviving 
members  of  the  original  corporation ;  as  witness  their  signa- 
tures : 

The  undersigned  Incorporators  and  ^fembers  of  the  Vestry 
at  the  organization  of  the  Parish  known  as  Christ  Church, 
Germantown,  familiar  with  the  causes  which  induced  that 
organization,  desire  to  record  the  same. 

Christ  Church,  Germantown,  was  originated  by  Mr.  P.  E. 
Hamm,  long  a  Member  and  Warden  of  Grace  Church,  Phila- 
delphia. 

(14)  .     3* 


15 

At  the  period  referred  to  above,  St,  Luke's  was  the  only 
Parish  in  German  town,  and  Mr.  Hamm,  who  for  yenvs  had 
been  identified  with  the  Low  Church  party,  having  consulted 
with  a  number  of  his  friends  holding  like  views,  determined 
upon  applying  to  the  proper  authorities  and  in  the  regular 
way,  for  a  charter  granting  to  him  and  his  colleagues  the 
right  and  privilege  of  forming  a  new  Parish.  Just  previous 
to  this  a  Sunday  School  had  been  organized  in  the  Dunkard's 
Meeting  Ilouse,  on  the  Main  Street  opposite  Tulpehocken 
Street,  and  here  occasional  services  were  held  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Goddard  and  other  clergymen  of  his  views,  and  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  originators  of  this  new  enterprise. 

At  the  convention,  when  the  application  for  a  charter  was 
brought  up,  some  objection  was  made  by  Dr.  Ducachet,  sup- 
posed to  be  in  the  interest  of  St.  Luke's  Parish,  that  such  an 
organization  would  trespass  on  the  rights  of  the  old  Parish  ; 
Bishop  Potter,  however,  decided  that  the  law  did  not  apply 
here  as  in  England  as  to  jurisdiction,  and  the  charter  was 
granted. 

Mr.  Hamm  went  to  work,  contributing  liberally  of  his 
means  and  obtaining  liberal  subscriptions  from  his  friends  of 
like  Church  views  as  himself,  to  the  new  Parish,  and  his 
efibrts  were  crowned  with  success,  and  the  Church  was 
known  and  recognized  as  the  representative  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Party  in  the  Church. 

To  show  tlie  distinctive  character  of  this  Parish,  its 
thorough  identilication  with  the  Low  Church  Party,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  state,  that  the  first  to  whom  a  call  was 
extended  was  the  Ptev.  Mr.  Bancroft,  of  Canada  East,  well 
known  for  his  decided  Low  Church  views,  after  him.  Dr. 
Watson,  at  present  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Atonement, 
then  Mr.  Walsh  who  was  connected  with  the  Church  of  the 
Epiphany  in  Philadelphia,  and  finally  Mr.  Atkins,  whose 
Low  Church  tendencies  none  can  question. 

Such  being  the  status  on  which  the  Church  was  organized 
and  carried  on  to  completion,  it  has  given  the  undersigned 
much  pleasure  to  notice,  that  from  its  inception  until  within 

4* 


16 

a  recent  period,  clergymen  holding  the  views  of  those  who 
foaucled  the  Parish,  have,  with  few  exceptions,  and  then  in 
cases  of  emergency  officiated,  and  its  funds  liave  been  abun- 
dantly and  freely  given  to  sustain  the  various  objects  put 
forth  by  that  portion  of  the  Church  known  as  the  Low 
Church  party. 

ALFRED  E.  TOTTER, 
G.  M.  TROUTMAi^, 
E.  W.  LEHMAN, 
J.  B.  CHAMPION', 
THOMAS  EARP, 
B.  G.  GODFREY, 
THEODORE  S.  WILLIAMS. 
Philadelphia,  January  17,  1872. 

The  cause  of  the  foundation  of  Christ  Church  was,  as  you 
have  seen,  the  absence  of  a  church  in  Germantown  of  evan- 
gelical views.  It  was  intended  as  a  supply  to  this  want,  and 
has  always  been  so  known.  The  history  of  the  Church  for 
all  the  time  of  its  existence  until  the  year  1870,  presents  a 
nniformly  evangelical  character.  The  Vestry  was  always 
united  on  this  point,  and  the  evangelical  societies  were  inva- 
riably supported  in  the  educational  and  missionary  work,  while 
from  the  pulpit,  the  views  of  the  evangelical  branch  of  the 
Church  were  always  promulgated  whether  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Rector,  or  from  those  well  known  and  highly  esteemed 
fathers  of  the  Church,  Bishops  Mcllvain  and  Bedell  of  Ohio, 
Johns  of  Virginia,  Lee  of  Delaware,  and  Eastburn  of  Massa- 
chusetts, or  from  Presbyters  scarcely  less  known — Drs.  Xew- 
ton,  Nicholson,  Suddards ;  Rev.  Messrs.  Brooks,  Cooper, 
Dudley  A.  Tyng,  and  many  others,  whose  solemn  words  of 
admonition  and  counsel  dwell  forever  in  the  hearts  of  their 
hearers,  thoup-h  so  Ions;  strans-e  to  their  ears. 

Under  these  conditions  the  records  of  the  Parish  show 
great  and  increasing  prosperity.  Year  by  year  the  congre- 
gations became  larger  and  larger,  and  more  homes  annually 

were  blessed  with  gospel  influences,  while  the  Sunday  school 

5* 


17 

became  the  largest  of  the  town,  and  an  instrument  of  highly 
esteemed  advantage  to  the  community.  Grace  Chapel,  Mount 
Airy,  was  established  and  nourished  until  it  came  to  matu- 
rity, and  is  now  a  useful  and  growing  independent  Church. 
Centre  Mission  raised  the  Sunday  school  banner  in  one  of  the 
most  neglected  parts  of  the  town  and  did  great  good  for  the 
Church  ;  nor  was  it  at  home  only  that  Christ  Church's  influ- 
ence was  felt ;  a  mission  chapel  was  built  on  the  west  coast 
of  Africa,  by  its  Sunday  school,  and  a  Missionary  supported 
by  it  labored  earnestly  for  Christ  under  the  equator. 

For  fifteen  years,  then,  Christ  Church  held  on  its  prosper- 
ous w^ay,  unruffled  by  the  waves  ot  polemical  discussion  and 
devoting  all  i^s  energy  to  its  work  of  evangelization. 

In  the  year  1869,  however,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Atkins  received 
a  call  from  St.  John's  Church,  Georgetown,  D.  C,  which  he 
felt  it  his  duty  to  accept,  and  therefore  tendered  his  resigna- 
tion, to  take  eifect  on  the  31st  of  July.  His  resignation  was 
accepted,  and  theYestry  proceeded,  on  the  7th  of  September 
following,  to  nominate  a  successor. 

The  first  nominations  made  on  that  evening,  may  be 
noticed  as  showing  what  sort  of  a  Rector  was  .desired.  Dr. 
Canfield  of  Brooklyn,  Revs.  0.  Perinchief,  C.  C.  Tifiany,  J. 
Newton  Stanger,  Drs.  Washburn  and  Ruraney. 

The  last  named  gentleman  received  one  vote,  Mr.  Tifiany 
one,  Dr.  Canfield  tAvo,  and  J.  Newton  Stanger  seven,  at  the 
regular  meeting  in  October.  There  having  been  an  arrange- 
ment that  nine  votes  should  be  necessary  to  an  election,  this, 
the  first  ballot,  was  without  result.  Other  nominations  were 
then  made,  but  no  further  ballots  were  cast,  and  the  matter 
was  laid  over  to  the  November  meeting.  In  the  meantime, 
a  member  of  the  Yestry  received  information  that  Dr.  Rum- 
ney  was  inclined  towards  the  High  Church,  and  as  the  in- 
formation came  from  an  excellent  source,  lie  communicated 
it  formally  to  the  members  of  the  Yestry. 

This  communication  caused  the  name  of  Dr.  Rnmney  to 
be  dropped,  and  the  succeeding  meetings  show  that  he  was 
not  ballotted  for.  The  November  meeting  resulted  in 
9  G* 


18 

nothing,  and  was  acljonrned  to  the  Tuesday  following,  when, 
with  several  others.  Rev.  "W  S.  Langford,  of  Englewood, 
N.  J.,  was  nominated,  but  no  ballot  cast. 

At  the  December  meeting  ad<litional  nominations  were 
made,  but  on  the  first  ballot  Mr.  Langford  was  unanimously 
elected.  During  all  this  time  the  Parish  was  under  the  care 
of  Eev.  J.  N.  Stanger,  and  so  remained  until  the  election  of 
Dr.  Rumney. 

Mr.  Langford  declined  the  call  of  the  Yestry  ;  his  decision 
being  announced  at  the  stated  meeting  in  January,  1871  ; 
but  so  strong  was  the  desire  of  the  Vestry  to  have  him  as 
Rector,  that  they  renewed  the  call  and  unanimously  signed 
a  letter,  urging  him  to  reconsider  the  matter  and  accept  the 
Rectorship.  Mr.  Langford,  however,  proved  firm  in  his  reso- 
lution, and  the  Vestry  were  obliged  to  accept  his  decision, 
which  they  did  with  great  regret.  The  special  meeting  to 
receive  Mr.  Langford 's  second  communication,  on  the  18th 
of  January,  as  well  as  the  regular  meeting  of  February,  re- 
sulted in  nothing.  Several  ballots  were  cast  on  each  occa- 
sion, but  no  approach  to  an  election  was  made.  Very  soon 
after  this  February  meeting,  Messrs.  H.  H.  Houston  and 
Crenshaw  were  not  a2')poinied  but  constituted  themselves  a  com- 
mittee to  go  to  White  Plains  to  see  and  hear  Dr.  T.  S.  Rum- 
ney, who  had  been  nominated  on  the  7th  of  September,  pre- 
ceding, but  had  been  dropped  as  you  have  seen.  JSIessrs. 
H.  H.  Houston  and  Crenshaw  called  a  meeting  of  the  Vestry 
immediately  on  their  return  to  Germantown,  when  they 
revived  the  nomination  of  Dr.  Rumneyi,  and  pressed  it 
strongly,  stating  that  they  had  heard  him  preach,  and  had 
been  delighted  with  his  sermon,  and  was  satisfied  that  he 
was  the  man  for  the  place. 

Now  among  the  Vestry,  Dr.  Rumney  was  entirely  un- 
known, and  the  gentleman,  who  had  made  the  communica- 
tion concerning  him,  was  from  home — travelling  in  Europe. 
Anxious  questions  were  of  course  addressed  to  the  only 
present  source  of  information,  by  Vestrymen  who  had  been 
for  years  identified  with  the  Church,  and  Messrs.  Houston 


19 

and  Crenshaw  were  requested  to  state  what  thej^  knew  of 
him.  One  gentleman,  ignorant  that  in  the  opinion  of  Dr. 
Rumney's  nominator,  "  a  clergyman  of  higher  Church  views 
was  desirable  as  Rector  of  Christ  Church,"  inquired  concern- 
ing Dr.  Rumney,  in  the  conversation  following: 

Is  Dr.  Rumney  an  evangelical  man  as  we  Low  Churchmen 
understand  it? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Is  Dr.  Rumney  willing  to  support  the  evangelical  societies, 
and  only  those ;  as  it  has  been  the  invariable  practice  of 
Christ  Church  to  support  ? 

Ans. — Yes.  ' 

There  are  several  points  in  the  character  of  Christ  Church 
Vestry,  which  when  understood,  will  explain  the  extraordi- 
nary action  about  to  be  recorded. 

1st.  The  Church  Avas  so  positively,  and  hy  definition,  evan- 
gelical that  no  attempt  in  any  other  direction  was  appre- 
hended, nor  would  the  above  question  have  beeu  put  except 
on  account  of  a  recollection  of  the  previous  communication 
on  the  subject. 

2d.  There  had  subsisted  for  years  in  the  Yestry  the  best 
possible  understanding  and  a  feeling  of  mutual  confidence 
and  esteem  so  fully  possessed  their  minds,  that  the  word  of 
a  member  was  a  customary  guarantee  of  any  unknown  or 
little  known  measure.  The  Vestrj^  then,  wearied  out  with 
many  meetings,  numerous  nominations  and  useless  ballots, 
and  hearing  from  their  fellow-members  an  account  so  glow- 
ing of  Dr.  Rumney's  sermon,  and  so  positive  an  afiirmative 
answer  to  the  exhaustive  questions  put  to  them,  proceeded 
to  elect  Dr.  Rumney,  unseen,  unheard,  unknown  ! 

The  call  was  immediately  communicated  to  Dr.  Rumney, 
and  on  the  5th  of  April  following  his  acceptance  was 
received. 

On  the  1st  of  May,  he  came  into  residence  in  Germantown, 
amid  the  prayers  and  good  wishes  of  an  earnest  people, 
delighted  that  they  had  again  a  Rector,  and  eager  to  resume 
in  a  regular  manner  their  much-loved  work  in  the  Parish. 

8* 


20 

They  hoped  that  the  most  prosperous  days  of  the  Church 
were  to  be  renewed,  and  that  other  and  greater  benefits 
were  to  result  to  the  community  from  the  revived  influence 
of  Christ  Church.     But  alas  !  this  feeling  did  not  continue. 

Trifling  causes  of  irritation  increasing  day  by  day,  as  is 
the  nature  of  all  human  misunderstanding,  soon  developed 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  growing  want  of  liarmony  between 
Church  and  Rector.  A  very  short  time  served  to  show  that 
Dr.  Rumney  was  not  "  an  evangelical  man  as  we  Low 
Churchmen  understand  it,"  and  that  he  was  not  willing  to 
support  those  evangelical  societies  which  it  had  been  the 
invariable  practice  of  Christ  Church  to  support.  Clergymen 
filled  the  pulpit  under  Dr.  Rumney's  auspices,  in  his 
exchanges  and  occasional  absences,  who  had  never  before 
addressed  the  congregation  of  Christ  Church,  and  who  were 
difierent  entirely  in  their  views  from  their  dearly-loved 
preachers.  Innovations  were  introduced  in  the  Parish  which 
were  not  approved  by  either  the  Vestry  or  the  pew-holders, 
and  it  began  to  be  discovered  that  the  Vestry  did  not  govern 
the  Church,  but  that  their  wishes  were  unsought  or  disre- 
garded, while  all  measures  were  conducted  by  the  Rector 
and  several  of  his  arbitrarily-chosen  counsellors.  The  people 
beo-anto  feel  uncomfortable  and  strang-ein  their  own  Church- 
home,  and  whispers  grew  into  loud  murmurs,  inquiring 
whether  there  was  no,  remedy  for  the  strange  evil,  or  must 
they  really  abandon  the  sanctuary,  hallowed  by  so  many 
years  of  happy  worship.  ' 

Nor   was   this    dissatisfaction    unknown    to   that   small 

minority  of  the  congregation  which  supported  Dr.. Rumney, 

as  sympathizing  with  his  nominator  in  the  opinion  that  a 

"  a  higher  order   of  churchmanship  was  desirable  in   the 

Rector  of  Christ  Church."     They  saw  the  rising  storm  and 

made  their  decision  at  once.     If  these  people  do  not  like  Dr. 

Rumney  let  them  go  elsewhere.     It  is  no  matter  that  the 

Church  was  especially  founded  for  an  Evangelical  Church  ;  it 

is  no  matter  that  these  people  built  the  Church  and    for 

fifteen  years  maintained  it  and  did  so  excellent  a  work  in 

9* 


21 

the  Parish ;  it  is  no  matter  that  they  are  in  the  majority,  and 
that  we  come  here  only  for  convenience,  in  point  of  distance 
or  otlier  such  reason,  and  are  not  in  sympathy  with  the 
principles  on  which  the  Church  was  founded — All  these 
things  matter  not !  Dr.  Bumney  is  the  Rector^  and  if  they  are 
not  satisfied  with  him  let  them,  go  elsewhere. 

The  Easter  election  of  1871  was  now  approaching.  Here 
was  an  opportunity  to  commence  their  work.  The  first  step 
was  of  course  to  obtain  a  Vestry  suited  to  their  purpose.  A 
ticket  was  printed  with  the  heading  "  To  support  the  pres- 
ent Rector  of  Christ  Church,"  and  this  with  the  followino- 
printed  circular  was  sent  to  every  voter. 

Germantown,  April  7,  1871. 


Dear  Sir  : 

We  regret  to  learn  that  a  Ticlcet  has  been  circnlated  in  the  Parish  with 
our  names  upon  it,  together  with  some  others  of  our  friends,  who  are 
avowedly  opposed  to  our  present  Rector. 

While  we  would  cheerfully  vote  for  all  or  either  of  the  gentlemen 
whose  names  are  upon  that  ticket,  were  they  disposed  to  sui>port  Dr. 
Rumney,  whom  we  know  to  be  exerting  his  energies  and  Christian  influ- 
ence successfully  and  with  entire  satisfaction  to  a  large  majority  of  the 
Congregation,  we  cannot  consent  to  aid  in  the  opposition  to  harmony  in 
the  Church  by  this  use  of  our  names. 

In  addition  to  this,  we  are  placed  as  Candidates  on  a  ticket  composed 
of  parties  friendly  to  Dr.  Rumney,  and  we  cannot  consistently  appear  as 
friends  and  opponents  of  the  same  cause. 

We  enclose  you  a  ticket  which  we  would  earnestly  ask  you  to  support 
at  the  election  to  be  held  on  Easter  Monday,  between  4  and  8  P.  M,  This 
we  do  as  a  solemn  duty,  feeling  convinced  that  by  this  j  ou  will  promote 
the  best  interest  of  Christ  Church  Parish. 

Respectfully  and  truly  yours, 

H.  n.  HOUSTON. 
S.  B.  KINGSTON. 


VESTRY 

To  support  the  present  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Qermantown. 

U.  H.  Houston,  M.  Maris, 

S.  B.  Kingston,  Richard  Torx^in,  Jr., 

M.  S.  Shapleigh,  C.  Bullock, 

E.  A.  Crenshaw,  E.  Bedlock, 

Jacob  Clark,  J.  B.  Barry, 

J.  A.  Schaeffer,  S.  K.  Kille. 
'                    10* 


22 

The  most  urgent  and  re|_)eatecl  personal  persuasion  was 
also  put  in  force  to  induce  the  voters  to  displace  the  very 
Vestry  which  had  elected  Dr.  Rumnej,  to  displace  the 
Yestry  which  had  so  long  and  faithfully  supported  the 
Church !  It  was  necessary  then  in  the  opinion  of  these  gen- 
tlemen that  the  oldest  Vestrymen  of  the  Church  should  be 
ejected  in  order  that  Dr.  Rumney  be  supported  !  That  the 
gentlemen  who  had  for  fifteen  years  so  ardently  supported 
Mr.  Atkins  with  work  in  the  Sunday  Schools,  and  the  Mis- 
sions as  well  as  in  the  payment  of  the  bills  and  the  collec- 
tions should  be  ejected  in  order  that  Dr.  Rumney  be 
supported !  Had  Vestrymen  changed  the  opinions  of  their 
lives?  Had  they  adopted  new  principles  of  action?  ISTo, 
gentlemen.  A  new  line  of  'policy  was  to  be  inaugurated,  and 
7iew  men  luere  required  to  carry  it  out. 

The  result  of  this  election,  in  which  every  effort  had  been 
made  to  secure  a  majority,  shows  in  the  plainest  and  most 
unmistakable  manner  the  decision  of  the  voters  as  to 
whether  they  did  or  did  not  wish  to  support  the  "  present 
Rector."  The  pew-holders  of  Christ  Church  on  that  occa- 
sion recorded  their  wishes  in  no  feeble  or  uncertain  manner. 
Of  forty-eight  votes,  thirty  were  found  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
old  system,  and  the  old  men.  Eighteen  were  willing  to  sup- 
port the  present  Rector ! 

The  ticket  so  triumphantly  elected  changed  but  tAvo 
names  from  the  preceding  Vestry.  The  Church  voted  30  to 
18  to  leave  out  Messrs.  Shapleigh  and  Crenshaw,  and  to  sub- 
stitute Messrs.  J.  W.  Lewis  and  W.  B.  Whitney. 

In  view  of  all  the  circumstances,  the  new  Vestry,  in  their 
first  meeting  after  their  organization,  viz. :  on  the  2d  of  May 
thought  that  some  action  should  be  taken,  and  they  accord- 
ingly appointed  a  committee  "  to  confer  with  the  Rector  on 
the  well  being  of  the  Parish,"  as  follows: — W.  C.  Houston, 
Charles  Spencer,  Jos.  W.  Lewis  and  W.  B.  Whitney. 

On  Sunday  evening,  21st  of  May,  after  service,  Mr.  W.  C. 
Houston,  chairman  of  the  committee  alluded  to,  waited  upon 
Dr.  Rumney  to  consult  his  convenience  as  to  meeting  the 
committee  on  the  following  evening,  Mondaj^,  22d  May. 

11* 


23 

Dr.  Eumney  agreed  to  meet  the  committee  at  the  time 
appointed,  but  declined  to  receive  any  communication  from 
them,  unless  written.  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston  replied,  that  the 
committee  had  not  contemplated  such  an  arrangement,  as 
they  had  been  appointed  to  confer  with  Dr.  Rumney,  which 
they  understood  to  mean  an  oral  interchange  of  views  on  the 
then  condition  of  affairs. 

Mr.  W.  C.  Houston  having  narrated  this  conversation  to 
the  committee,  they  decided  to  agree  to  Dr.  Rumney's  re- 
quest, and  proceeded  to  prepare  a  communication,  which 
they  presented  to  Dr.  Rumney  at  the  time  appointed,  Mon- 
day, May  22d. 

Before  quoting  this  communication  and  the  correspondence 
which  followed,  we  desire  to  state  that  our  edition  of  the 
correspondence  is  obtained  from  the  miuutes  [see  report  of 
committee  to  Vestry,  5t.h  September,  1871],  and  duly  certi- 
fied in  every  case  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Vestry. 

Germantown,  22  May^  1871. 
Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : 

That  an  unpleasant  difference  of  opinion  exists  in  Christ 
Church  Parish,  is  evident  from  the  expression  at  the  head 
of  the  unsuccessful  ticket  presented  at  the  last  Easter  elec- 
tion, no  less  than  by  the  statement  read  by  yourself  from  the 
chancel  on  the  Sunday  before  Easter. 

A  circular  was  issued  two  days  before  the  election  accom- 
panying a  ticket,  which  if  elected  would  have  ejected  six 
members  of  the  Vestry  which  called  you  to  the  Parish.  This 
ticket  was  headed  "Vestry  to  support  the  present  Rector 
of  Christ  Church,"  and  the  circular  expressed  in  the 
strongest  terms  the  reasons  why  the  ticket  it  recommended 
should  be  elected. 

The  advocates  of  each  ticket  were  furnished  with  a  full 
list  of  the  voters,  and  the  ticket  and  circular  referred  to  were 
sent  to  every  person  entitled  to  vote,  while  a  direct  and  most 
earnest  personal  appeal  was  made  to  almost  every  voter. 

After  all  this  had  been  done,  the  new  candidates  received 

12* 


24 

respectively,  21,  17,  17,  17,  16  and  14,  out   of  forty-seven 
votes ! 

On  the  other  hand  those  who  voted  the  ticket,  styled  in 
the  circular  above  referred  to,  "  opposed  to  you  as  Rector  of 
Christ  Church,"  did  so  understand! ngly,  and  with  a  full 
determination  to  maintain  the  principles  of  the  Church  in 
the  interests  for  which  it  was  established.  The  smallest  vote 
cast  upon  this  ticket  was  26,  for  one  of  the  two  members  of 
the  Vestry.  The  direct  votes  with  the  families  thus  repre- 
sented, constitute  a  large  number  of  the  congregation  who 
are  not  satisfied  with  your  preaching  or  Church  party  pro- 
clivities. Christ  Church  was  originated  and  erected  by 
ardent  adherents  of  the  evangelical  principles  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  has  always  been  sustained  and  known  far 
and  wide  as  a  positive  member  of  the  Low  Church  party. 

This  hitherto  positive  record  of  the  Parish  as  a  member 
of  the  Low  Church  party  makes  it  necessary  that  its  Rector 
should  be  thoroughly  identified  with  that  branch  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  or  else  that  the  character  of  the  Parish 
should  change. 

The  latter  alternative,  we  say  in  all  candor,  we  believe 
cannot  be  reached,  and  certainly  cannot  be  with  our  consent. 

You  have  never  given  us  reason  to  believe  that  you  would 
act  in  harmony  with  that  party,  or  with  the  evangelical  socie- 
ties of  the  Church.  The  aim  and  object  of  the  Ministry 
should  be  the  conversion  of  souls  to  Christ,  as  well  as  confirm- 
ing, deepening  and  energizing  the  faith  of  His  professed 
followers. 

To  accomplish  this,  there  should  be  the  most  perfect  accord 
between  Rector  and  people.  That  this  does  not  exist,  we 
tliink  no  candid  person  will  deny,  and  we  believe  that  if  a 
vote  could  be  taken  of  every  communicant  of  the  Parish, 
upon  the  simple  question  (independently  of  their  kind  regard 
and  personal  afiiection  for  yourself),  whether  Christ  Church 
shall  continue  as  heretofore,  in  close  and  cordial  connection 
with  the  Low  Church  party  or  not,  the  result  would  show  a 
majority  as  large,  in  proportion  to  number  of  votes  cast,  in 

13* 


25 

favor  of  such  continuance  as  was  o-lven  in  favor  of  rctainius: 
all  but  two  of  the  members  of  the  old  Vestry. 

Tliat  such  a  vote  could  not  now  be  taken,  arises  from  the 
fact  that  the  question  could  not,  under  the  circumstances 
heretofore  alluded  to,  be  now  divested  of  the  personal  con- 
siderations which  have  been  so  unfortunately  brought  in. 

The  position  of  Christ  Church  assumes  more  importance 
to  such  citizens  of  Germantown  as  desire  to  be  identified 
with  the  Low  Church  party,  because  it  is  now  the  only  Parish 
in  this  part  of  the  city,  which  is  not  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent  opposed  to  that  party ;  and  if  Christ  Church  is 
brought  into  accord,  these  will  have  no  Church  home. 

We  beg  to  assure  you  that  this  statement  is  made  with 
none  but  kind  personal  feeling  for  yourself,  and  only  with  a 
desire  to  bring  about  harmony  and  active  co-operation  in  the 
Parish,  and  it  is  not  our  desire  to  have  any  official  record 
made,  or  more  public  notice  taken  of  this  matter,  than  this 
plain  statement  and  candid  appeal  to  j^ourself.  In  view  of 
this  state  of  aftairs  and  the  consequent  drawback  to  the 
efficient  working  of  the  Parish  for  the  building  up  of  the 
faith  of  its  present  members  and  in  bringing  others  into  the 
fold  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  we  desire  in  the  kindest  manner 
possible,  to  ask,  whether  you  cannot  better  serve  the  great 
cause  to  which  you  have  consecrated  yourself,  by  changing 
your  field  of  labor  before  the  present  difficulties  shall  have 
culminated  in  some  way  more  unpleasant  to  you,  and  more 
injurious  to  the  cause  of  our  Master. 

We  trust  that  these  representations  will  convince  you  that 
the  cause  of  Christ  and  the  happiness  of  our  Parish  will  be 
promoted  by  your  resignation,  to  take  effect  after  you  shall 
have  had  ample  time  to  make  arrangements  for  such  a 
change. 

"VVe  earnestly  suggest  that  you  will  take  this  matter  into 
praj-erful  consideration,  without  exposing  it  to  any  who 
might  from  personal  esteem,  be  led  to  advise  you  more  in 
accordance  with  their  wishes  than  their  judgment. 

We  propose  to  keep  the  subject  of  this  communication 

14* 


26 

entirely  between  you  and  ourselves,  and  shall  be  glad  to  have 
your  early  reply  to  it. 

Vert/  respectfully^ 

On  behalf  of  the  Committee. 

Eectory  of  Christ  Church, 

Germantown,  May  30,  1871. 

To  Messrs.  "W".  C.  Houston',  Spencer,  Lewis  and  ^Vhitney. 

Gentlemen  : — I  might  properly  decline  to  make  any  answer 
to  the  communication  dated  May  2'2d,  1871,  handed  to  me 
by  you  on  the  evening  of  the  day  it  bears  date,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  signed  by  you  or  any  one  else ;  but  I 
prefer  to  regard  it  for  the  purpose  of  this  reply,  as  if  it  were 
signed  by  you. 

In  the  paper  in  which  3^ou  have  placed  in  my  hands,  I  do 
not  find  any  specific  charges  made  against  me,  in  my  ofiice 
of  Eector  of  the  Church,  over  which  Divine  Providence  has 
placed  me,  and  therefore,  cannot  further  answer,  except  to 
say,  that  whenever  charges  of  any  specific  default  as  the 
Rector  of  Christ  Church  are  communicated  to  me  by  the 
Vestry,  I  will  endeavor  to  reply  respectfully  and  fully  to  the 
same,  and  iu  the  meantime  remain 

Your  friend  and  Pastor, 
[signed.]  THEODORE  S.  RUMNEY. 

Rev.  T.  S.  Eumney,  D.  D., 

Dear  Sir: — Your  note  of  30th  IMay,  referring  to  our  inter- 
view and  communication  was  duly  received.  The  paper  read 
to  and  left  with  you,  was  not  signed,  as  it  was  not  received 
after  being  copied  until  five  minutes  of  the  time  we  called 
upon  you,  but  being  presented  by  the  committee  in  a  body, 
we  deem  the  point  you  make,  of  no  moment  whatever.  We 
presented  our  views  in  writing,  as  an  act  of  courtesy  to  your 
request,  not  that  we  admitted  the  right  to  ask  it,  as  the 
resolution  raising  the  committee  was  lor  a  conference.     We 

15* 


27 

sincerely  regret  that  you  did  not  think  proper  to  answer  our 
communication,  after  requesting  it  in  writing. 

The  mover  of  the  resolution  for  a  committee  "  to  confer 
with  you  on  the  state  of  the  Parish,"  did  not  contemplate 
presentations  of  charges  of  any  specific  default  as  Eector  of 
Christ  Church,  but  to  express  to  you,  in  candid,  plain  and 
frank  manner,  the  views  conveyed  in  the  communication  re- 
ferred to.  Our  object  was  to  inform  you  of  a  want  of  har- 
mony, and  difterence  of  views  existing  between  yourself  and 
a  large  portion  of  the  congregation,  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
cause  great  unhappiness,  which,  if  continued,  would  prove 
seriously  detrimental  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  having 
heard  that  you  said  when  you  came  to  the  Parish,  "if  you 
thought  that  there  was  a  single  person  opposed  to  you,  you 
would  not  accept  the  call ;"  we  would  not  understand,  how, 
as  a  Minister  of  the  Gospel,  you  could  remain,  when  you  had 
proof  that  a  majority  of  the  congregation  was  dissatified  with 
your  preaching  and  Church  polity. 

"We  had  indulged  the  hope,  that  the  presentation  of  our 
views  and  those  we  represent,  would  have  induced  you  to 
calmly  consider  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings,  in  reference  to 
yourself  and  your  family,  as  well  as  to  the  great  and  holy 
cause  of  our  Lord  and  Master,  and  that  however  great  the 
sacpfice  might  seem,  you  would  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that 
your  happiness  and  the  cause  of  religion  would  be  most  pro- 
moted, by  tendering  your  resignation  "  to  take  effect  after 
you  had  ample  time  to  make  arrangements  for  such  a 
change." 

"We  had  also  hoped  that  such  an  end  could  be  accomplished 
in  as  private  a  manner  as  possible,  as  we  had  no  desire  to 
injure  you  or  your  future  prospects,  by  act,  word  or  deed, 
and  sincerely  pray  that  such  may  still  be  the  case. 

"\Ve  learn  with  regret,  that  soon  after  tlie  date  of  your 
note,  a  paper  was  being  presented  to  members  of  the  con- 
gregation for  signature,  asking  3'ou  not  to  resign,  as  we 
thought  such  action  would  place  you  in  an  unfortunate 
position,  not  only  v/ith  those  of  our  Parish,  but   with  the 

16* 


28 

community  at  large,  and  we  still  tliink  it  was  an  injudicious 
move  on  the  part  of  your  friends.  We  remained  quiet  on 
tlie  subject  about  two  weeks,  when  on  hearing  of  the  repre- 
sentations that  were  made  to  parties  to  sign  said  paper,  it 
was  deemed  but  right  to  draw  up  a  counter  paper  which  has 
thus  far  been  signed  by  about  130  persons. 

Upon  consultation,  we  have  decided  to  address  you  again. 

As  a  congregation  you  must  be  aware  we  are  not  only 
sadly  divided,  but  very  unhappy,  and  we  regret  to  learn 
that  this  feeling  in  some  cases  extends  even  to  family  circles. 
"With  such  knowledge  we  know  you  cannot  be  happy  your- 
self, as  the  cause  of  religion  can  never  prosper  as  it  should 
under  such  adverse  circumstances;  indeed,  is  a  great  sufferer 
from  the  outside  world,  which  always  seems  to  rejoice  at  any 
trouble  amongst  church  members. 

Our  belief  is,  that  the  longer  matters  remain  in  their 
present  state,  the  worse  it  will  be  for  the  church,  as  also  for 
your  future  usefulness  and  happiness.  It  has  been  proposed 
that  a  special  meeting  of  the  Vestry  should  be  called  to 
receive  the  report  of  the  committee  and  such  action  be  then 
taken  as  they  might  deem  proper.  This  course  would  place 
upon  the  minutes,  communications  handed  to  you,  and  your 
reply,  and  thus  make  the  matter  still  more  public,  which 
should  be  a  source  of  regret  to  all.  In  support  of  our  state- 
ment that  it  is  not  "  only  a  few  "  in  the  congregation  who 
desire  your  resignation,  we  have  made  an  analj'sis  by  taking 
each  pew  in  the  Church  and  counting  the  members  of  the 
congregation  over  fifteen  years  of  age,  who  are  represented 
by  the  pew  and  seat  holders,  who  liave  signed  the  paper 
asking  your  resignation,  and  find  that  nearly  two-thirds  of 
the  congregation  and  about  the  same  proportion  of  the  legal 
voters  desire  the  change. 

We  consider  the  suggestion  that  has  been  made,  that  all 
who  are  dissatisfied  with  the  present  status  of  the  Church 
should  go  elsewhere,  a  most  ungenerous  one  in  view  of  the 
large  number  thus  situated,  and  we  deem  it  as  impossible  to 

17* 


29 

force  tlicm  away  as  it  is  for  them  to  be  reconciled  to  having 
you  as  their  Rector. 

With  this  statement  of  facts  we  again  appeal  to  you  to 
consider  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings  on  Christ  Church  as 
well  as  the  Church  at  large,  and  on  the  happiness  of  your- 
self and  family  as  well  as  your  usefulness  now  and  in  the 
future,  and  then  decide  whether  it  will  not  be  best  to  call  a 
special  meeting  of  the  Vestry  and  tender  your  resignation  to 
take  effect,  say  1st  January  next.  This  action  coming  from 
yourself  would  not  prejudice  you  and  would  settle  the  whole 
difficulty.  The  Vestry  will  grant  you  as  early  leave  of 
absence  as  you  may  desire,  with  your  salary  paid  in  advance 
to  the  time  named,  and  also  make  the  necessary  arrange- 
ments to  keep  up  the  work  of  the  Parish. 

Hoping  you  will  favor  us  with  an  early  reply  and  that  the 
nature  of  it  may  be  the  means  of  securing  the  happiness  of 
all  parties  concerned,  we  are 

Very  BespedfuUy  Yours^ 
[siGKED.]  W.  C.  HOUSTON, 

CHAS.  SPENCER, 
JOS.  W.  LEWIS, 
W.  B.  WHITNEr, 

Committee. 
Germantoavn,  July  26, 1871. 

Germa:jttown,  25  August,  1871. 
Rev.  T.  S.  Rumney,  D.  D. 

Dear  Sir  : — On  the  26th  day  of  July,  thirty  days  since,  a 
communication  was  handed  to  you  from  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church  the  2d  day  of 
May ;  and  as  they  addressed  you  in  writing,  in  accordance 
with  your  expressed  wish,  the  members  thereof  are  united 
in  their  opinion  that  they  were  entitled  to  a  reply,  if  dictated 
by  no  other  motive  than  common  courtesy,  and  have  re- 
quested me  to  so  inform  you. 

They  also  wish  me  to  say,  that  if  you  desire  proof  of  the 

statement  made  in  said   communication  in    regard  to  the 

lb* 


30 

views  of  the  voters  and  members  of  tlie  Congregation  it  ^x\\l 
be  promptly  furnished. 

I  am,  respedfuU}/, 
[SIGNED.]  W.  C.   HOUSTON, 

Chairman  of  Committee. 

Eectory  of  Christ  Church, 
Germantown,  July  31,  1871. 

"Wm.  C.  Houston,  Esq.,  Chairman  of  Committee. 

Dear  Sir  : — I  have  received  the  communication  of  your 
committee,  dated  July  26th,  and  respectfully  ask  that  you 
will  send  to  me  the  original  paper  asking  my  resignation, 
with  the  names  subscribed  thereto,  which  I  presume  is  ad- 
dressed to  me,  and  if  in  possession  of  the  Committee  should 
have  been  enclosed  with  their  letter. 

Very  RcsjpectfuUy  Yours, 
[SIGNED.]  THEODORE  S.  RUMXEY. 

Germantown,  August  27,  1871. 
Mr.  Houston. 

Dear  Sir  : — In  the  absence  of  Dr.  Rumney,  allow  me  to 
say  that  your  son  can  fully  explain  you  Dr.  Rumney's  seem- 
ingly discourteous  conduct. 

Truly, 
[SIGNED.]  KE^m  J.  RUMNEY. 

August  31,  1871. 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney. 

Dear  Sir  :— Your  note  of  July  31st,  to  Mr.  Houston 
was  given  me  to-day,  the  delay  in  its  delivery  was  ex- 
plained to  Mrs.  Rumney  by  Mr.  H.,  Jr.,  and  this  will  ex- 
plain to  you,  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston's  note  to  you  of  August  25th. 
As  Mr.  Houston  is  from  home,  it  devolves  on  me  to  assume 
his  place.     I  therefore  beg  to  say  that  the  paper  to  which 

you  refer  was  addressed  to  the  Vestry  ;  had  it  been  addressed 

19* 


31 

to  yon  it  would  have  been  sent  yon.  As  we  have  a  Yestry 
meeting  on  Tuesday  next,  the  Committee  earnestly  request 
that  you  Avill  answer  their  communication  of  July  26th,  that 
it  may  be  acted  upon  at  said  meeting.  The  Committee's 
only  object  is  the  glory  of  God  in  the  good  of  the  Church, 
and  they  trust  you  will  see  your  duty  in  this  regard. 

Very  respectfully^ 
[signed.]  '  CHAS.  SPENCEE. 

Germantown,  September  1,  1871. 
Eev.  T.  S.  Eumney,  D.  D. 

Dear  Sir: — By  the  advice  of  a  part  of  the  Committee,  I 
herewith  send  you  a  copy  of  the  petition  addressed  to  the 
Vestry  with  the  signatures  attached. 

There  are  a  great  many  who  fully  endorse  every  word  of 
the  paper  who  have  not  signed,  amongst  them  I  may  men- 
tion Mr.  C.  W.  Robinson,  Mr.  E.  M.  Lewis,  Mr.  George 
!N"ugent,  and  Mr.  J.  Clark,  there  are  four  names  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  2d  page  of  parties  who  had  signed  a  paper  ad- 
dressed to  you,  to  which  this  paper  refers.  Thej'  state  that 
they  did  so  without  proper  reflection  and  now  attach  their 
names  to  the  paper  herewith. 

Respectfully  yours, 
[SIGNED.]  CHAS.  SPEXCER. 

Here  follows  the  petition  referred  to  in  and  enclosed  to 
Dr.  Rumncy,  with  the  preceding  letter. 

To  THE  Vestry  of  Curist  Church, 

Germantown. 
A  paper  having  been  circulated  for  signature  asking  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney  to  decline  acceding  to  any  request  that 
may  be  made  asking  him  to  resign  the  Rector  of  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  we,  the  undersigned  Communicants, 
holders  of  pews  or  sittings  and  members  of  the  congregation, 

20* 


32 

hereby  desire  to  express  our  conviction  that  the  best  interests 
of  the  Church  and  congregation  with  which  we  are  con- 
nected will  be  best  subserved  by  the  resignation  of  the  pres- 
ent Rector.  We  also  desire  to  say  that  we  have  been  moved 
to  this  conclusion  by  no  personal  ill-will  or  opposition  to 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney,  and  have  no  desire  to  injure  him  or  in 
any  way  interfere  with  his  usefulness  in  any  other  field  to 
which  he  may  be  called. 

Here  follow  the  signatures  of  47  voters  and  pew-holders, 
and  82  other  members  of  the  congregation. 

After  these  preceding  communications  had  been  read  to 
the  Yestry,  Mr.  Spencer,  who  was  presenting  the  report  of 
the  committee  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Jlouston,  Chairman, 
said : — 

Before  I  read  Dr.  Rumney's  letter  of  September  2d,  I 
would  like  to  be  informed  by  Dr.  Rumney  on  the  following 
points  :  Before  you  wrote  your  letter  of  September  2d,  did 
you  not  receive  mine  of  August  31st  and  September  1st,  with 
a  copy  of  the  petition  addressed  to  the  Vestry  and  a  list  of 
the  si'gners  attached  ? 

Dr.  Rumney — I  did  not  receive  your  letters  before  I 
wrote  mine  of  September  2d. 

Mr.  Spencer — My  first  letter  was  written  August  31st, 
and  posted  the  same  day.  Did  you  not  on  reaching  home 
find  it,  and  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston's  of  August  25th? 

Dr.  Rumney — I  did.* 

Mr.  Spencer — Your  letter  was  dated  September  2d,  but 
postntfirked  September  4th.  Did  you  not  receive  my  letter 
of  September  1st,  and  a  copy  of  the  petition  with  list  of 
signers  before  you  posted  your  letter  ? 

Dr.  Ramncy — I  did,  but  did  not  read  them  until  after  I 
had  posted  my  letter  of  September  2d. 

This  was  .the  end  of  the  conversation.  Mr.  Spencer  con- 
tinued the  report  by  reading  the  document  next  in  order, 
viz.:  Dr.  Rumney's  letter  of  September  2d. 

*See  pages  G3  and  123. 
21* 


33 

Rectory  of  Christ  Cuurch, 

Germantown,  September  2, 1871. 

To  Messrs.  W.  C.  Houston,  Charles  Spencer,  J.  AV.  Lewis, 
W.  B.  Whitney,  Committee  on  Conference. 

Gentlemen: — Upon  my  return  last  night  I  found  await- 
ing me  the  following  note  from  your  Chairman: 

Germantown,  25th  August^  1871. 
Rev.  T.  S.  Rumney,  D.  D. 

Dear  Sir  : — On  the  26th  day  of  July,  thirty  days  since, 
a  communication  was  handed  to  you  from  the  Committee 
appointed  by  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church  the  2d  day  of 
May,  and  as  they  addressed  you  in  writing,  in  accordance 
with  your  expressed  wish,  the  members  thereof  are  united  in 
their  opinion  that  they  were  entitled  to  a  reply  if  dictated 
by  no  other  motive  than  common  courtesy,  and  have  re- 
quested me  to  so  inform  you.  They  also  wish  me  to  say 
that  if  you  desire  proof  of  the  statements  made  in  said  com- 
munication in  regard  to  the  views  of  the  voters  and  mem*- 
bers  of  the  congregation   it   will    be  promptly   furnished. 

I  am, 

BespectfuUy^ 
[SIGNED.]  W.  C.  HOUSTO:^', 

Chairman  of  Committee. 

The  tenor  of  the  above  communication  establishes  me  in 
the  conviction,  so  long  entertained,  that  your  committee  and 
some  others  whose  minds  have  been  prejudiced  against  me 
are  wholly  mistaken  in  their  estimate  of  my  character  as  a 
gentleman,  a  Christian  or  a  clergyman.  On  the  31st  day  of 
fast  July,  I  addressed  to  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston,  as  Chairman 
of  your  Committee,  the  following  note : 

Rectory  of  Christ  Churcit, 

Germantown,  July  31,  1871. 

\Vm.  C.  Houston,  Esq.,  Chairman  of  Committee. 

Dear  Sir  :— I  have  received  the  Communication  of  your 
Committee  dated  July  26th,  and  respectfully  ask  that  you 
3  23* 


34 

will  send  to  me  the  original  paper  asking  my  resignation, 
with   the   names   subscribed   thereto,  which   I   presume  is 
addressed  to  me,  and  if  in  the  possession  of  the  committee 
should  have  been  enclosed  with  their  letters. 
Very  respectfully  yours, 
[SIGNED.]  THEODORE  S.  RUMNEY. 

You  may  imagine  my  surprise  at  receiving  no  reply,  but 
presuming  upon  the  gentlemanly  character  of  the  Committee, 
I  was  willing  to  wait,  hoping  in  due  time  to  receive  my 
request.  I  have  been  informed  that  the  Committee  has 
recently  received  my  communication  of  July  31st,  but  no 
written  explanation  placing  the  blame  of  the  delay  where  it 
belongs,  and  releasing  me  from  the  unjust  severity  of  the 
letter  above  quoted  has  yet  come  to  hand.  In  that  letter 
your  Chairman  assures  me  that  "  if  I  desire  proof  of  the 
statement  made,  etc.,  the  Committee  wish  him  to  say  that 
it  will  be  promptly  furnished." 

My  request  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  three 
daj's  at  least,  but  I  have  not  received  the  original  paper  for 
which  I  respectfully  asked. 

It  is  pertinent  to  my  present  writing  that  I  remind  you  of 
the  substance  of  my  communications  with  the  acting  Vestry 
at  the  time  of  my  etection  and  settlement  as  Rector  of  Christ 
Church.  In  the  letter  announcing  my  election  the  Com- 
mittee appointed  used  the  following  language :  "  We  believe 
that  the  unanimity  of  the  Vestry  in  extending  ^-ou  this  call 
is  a  clear  intimation  of  the  guidance  of  Divine  Providence, 
and  we  trust  it  may  be  so  regarded  by  you,  and  cause  your 
early  acceptance  of  the  trust." 

CHARLES  LE  BOUTILLIER,  Warden. 

H.  H.  HOUSTOI^, 

E.  A.  CRENSHAW. 

23* 


35 

Tn  my  reply  T  -wrotG  thns: — "If  it  is  a  Providential  inti- 
mation that  I  must  chano^e  my  happy  relations  of  years  and 
sever  my  connections  with  this  beloved  people,  I  am  ready 
to  comply  with  Heaven's  appointment,  but  I  think  it  would 
be  well  and  just  that  I  visit  you  before  giving  a  positive 
answer  to  your  kind  invitation." 

I  accordingly  came  and  officiated  in  the  Church  and  after- 
wards assembling  a  number  of  the  Vestry,  I  assured  them 
that  if  one  member  of  the  Congregation  expressed  dissatisfaction 
with  the  Vestry's  action,  I  would  cheerfully  release  them 
from  every  obligation,  and  contentedly  return  to  my  com- 
fortable and  happy  home,  and  be  saved  the  terrible  ordeal 
of  separation  before  me.  I  was  told  by  them  that  the  Con- 
gregation unanimously  sustained  the  action  of  the  Vestry, 
and  the  matter  seemed  to  be  so  clearly  from  God  that  I 
dared  not  decline.  And  in  my  acceptance  expressed  the 
hope,  that  all  would  "  work  with  me  in  faith,  and  give  me 
their  sympathy,  their  love,  and  their  prayers." 

Having  been  induced  by  such  considerations  of  duty,  at 
great  sacrifice^  to  change  my  parochial  relations,  and  now 
falling  to  see  any  just  occasion  for  relinquishing  my  present 
position  as  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  I  must  beg  leave  under 
the  guidance  of  that  Being  whose  direction  I  have  earnestly 
craved,  genthj  but  positively  to  decline  compliance  with  your 
suggestions  that  I  should  tender  my  resignation  of  the 
charge  wich  God  has  so  solemly  placed  in  my  hands. 

When  I  consider  my  duty  to  Him,  as  His  chosen  ambassa- 
dor I  dare  not.  "When  I  remember  that  I  should  be  virtually 
acknowledging  the  truth  of  the  many  false  statements  with 
which  Philadelphia  has  been  filled  regarding  me,  I  cannot 
do  so ;  in  honor  to  my  office  as  a  Minister  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  to  say  nothing  of  my  individual  character  as  a  gen- 
tleman. 

The  two  communications  which  I  have  received  from  you 

as  a  Committee,  are  based  almost  wholly  upon  the  fact  that 

a  prejudice  (as  you  say)  exists  against  me  in  the  Parish. 

That  such  prejudice  has  been  created  (not  arisen  spontane- 

24* 


36 

oiislj^),  in  tlie  minds  of  some,  and  created  too  in  a  number  of 
instances  by  statements  which  had  no  foundation  in  truth,  I 
am  fully  aware;  yet  I  feel  so  confident  that  in  the  strength, 
and  by  the  grace  of  the  Master,  whom  I  strive  humbly  to 
serve,  it  shall  be  possible  for  me  to  live  down  that  prejudice, 
and  to  show  that  it  has  been  occasioned  by  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  my  views  and  purposes.  Had  I  consulted  my  own 
feelings  and  sensitive  nature,  I  should  long  before  this,  have 
sought  peace  and  quiet  by  removal  to  some  other  sphere,  but 
a  sense  of  duty  has  given  me  confidence,  and  God  has  gra- 
ciously sustained  me  day  by  day,  enabling  me  to  bear  up 
under  the  cruel  persecutions,  which  for  some  months  past 
has  been  waged  against  me  by  a  few,  for  which  it  does  not 
appear  that  occasion  has  been  given,  either  in  my  public 
ministrations  or  in  my  more  private  discharge  of  duty  as 
Minister  of  this  Church.  I  pray  that  God  will  forgive  the 
wrong  of  those  who  have  thus  interfered  with  the  peaceful 
success  of  one  of  his  servants,  and  enable  them  to  see  the 
injustice  they  have  done  me.  And  now  my  determination 
is  fixed,  and  I  dare  not  go  counter  to  what  my  conscience 
tells  me  is  the  will  of  Heaven.  Hoping  you  will  receive  this 
decision  in  the  spirit  with  which  I  write  it,  I  remain 
Your  Friend  and  Pastor, 
[SIGNED.]  THEODORE  S.  RUMISTEY. 

Thus  closes  the  correspondence  between  Dr.  Eumney  and 
the  Committee  of  the  Vestry  as  reported  to  the  Vestry  on 
the  5th  of  September,  1871. 

Defore  proceeding  to  the  next  point  of  our  subject,  we 
should  like  to  notice  this  final  letter  of  Dr.  Rumney,  first 
asking  you  to  compare  the  "  spirit  with  \vhich  "  it  is  written 
with  the  spirit  displayed  by  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry  in 
those  communications  to  which  it  is  an  answer. 

1st.   Dr    Rumney  saj'^s : — "  Upon   my   return   home   last 

night  I  found  awaiting  me  the  following  note  from  your 

25* 


37 

Chairman  "  (here  he  recites  Mr.  Houston's  note  of  An2:u8t 
25th),  but  he  does  not  say  that  he  also  found  Mr.  Spencer's 
note  of  August  31st,  showing  why  Mr.  Houston's  letter  of 
August  25th  was  written  ;  yet  at  the  Vestry  meeting  of 
September  5th,  he  admitted  that  he  received  both  of  these 
letters  at  the  same  time. 

2d.  Dr.  Rumney  further  says  (referring  to  his  note  of  31st 
July,  and  to  the  delay  in  the  answer  of  the  Committee  and 
also  to  Mr.  Houston's  note  of  25th  of  August):  "But  no 
icritten  explanation  placing  the  blame  of  delay  where  it  be- 
longs and  releasing  me  from  the  unjust  severity  of  the  letter 
above  quoted  {i.  e.  Mr.  Houston's  of  25th  August),  has  yet 
come  to  hand."  Please  note  that  Dr.  Rumney  admitted  to 
the  Vestry,  on  the  5th  of  September,  having  received  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Houston,  dated  25th  August,  (in  which  the 
'"'unjust  severity"  occurred),  and  Mr.  Spencer's  note  of  31st 
August  at  the  same  time ;  he  having  been  away  from  home 
at  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Houston's  note  and  until 
the  arrival  of  Mr.  Spencer's.  ISTow,  in  Mr.  Spencer's  note  of 
31st  August,  we  find  the  following  : 

"Rev.  Dr.  Rumney, — Dear  Sir: — Your  note  of  31st  July, 
to  Mr.  Houston,  was  given  me  to-day  ;  the  delay  in  its  delivery 
was  explained  to  Mrs.  Rumney  by  Mr.  Houston,  Jr.,  and  this 
will  explain  to  you  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston,  Sr.'s  note  to  you  of 
August  25  th!" 

3d.  Dr.  Rumney,  again  referring  to  Mr.  Houston's  note  of 
25th  August,  says: — '"In  that  letter  your  Chairman  assures 
me  that  if  I  desire  proof  of  the  statements  made,  etc.,  the 
Committee  wish  him  to  say  that  it  will  be  promptly  fur- 
nished. My  request  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee 
at  least  three  days,  but  I  have  not  yet  received  the  original 
paper  for  which  I  respectfully  asked." 

Dr.  Rumney  admits  having  received  Mr.  Spencer's  note  of 
31st  August  before  he  wrote  the  above,  now  Mr.  Spencer,  in 

2G* 


38 

that  letter,  tells  Dr.  Eumney  that  the  paper  referred  to  was 
addressed  not  to  Dr.  Rumney,  but  to  the  Vestry,  and  thereby 
shows  him  that  he  has  no  right  to  demand  it. 

Mr.  Spencer  did,  however,  after  consultation  with  a  part 
of  the  committee  prepare  a  copy  of  the  paper  on  the  1st  oi 
September,  which  together  with  Mr.  Spencer's  note  of  that 
date,  was  handed  to  Mrs.  JRumney,  in  Dr.  Rumney's  presence, 
by  Mr.  Spencer's  servant,  on  the  2d  of  September  1  Now 
please  take  notice,  Dr.  Rumney's  letter  was  dated  September 
2d,  but  was  not  posted  till  September  4th  1  So  that  he  had 
that  very  paper  of  the  tardiness  of  which  he  complains,  for 
at  least  thirty-six  hours  before  he  mailed  his  letter !  ISTow, 
referring  to  the  conversation  between  Dr.  Rumney  and 
JNIr.  Spencer  at  the  Vestry  meeting  of  September  5th,  we 
find — Mr.  Spencer — Did  you  not  receive  my  letter  of  Sep- 
tember 1st  and  a  copy  of  the  petition  with  list  of  the  signers, 
before  you  posted  your  letter  of  September  2d  ? 

Dr.  Rumney: — I  did,  but  did  not  read  them  until  after  I  had 
posted  my  letter  of  September  2d  ! 

4th.  Dr.  Rumney  further  says,  "  I  accordingly  came  and 
officiated  in  the  church,  and  afterwards,  assembling  a  num- 
ber of  the  Vestry,  I  assured  them  that  if  one  member  of  the 
congregation  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  the  Vestry's  action, 
I  would  cheerfully  release  them  from  every  obligation  *  ^ 
I  was  told  by  them  that  the  congregation  unanimously  sus- 
tained the  action  of  the  Vestry,  and  the  matter  seemed  to  be 
so  clearly  from  God,  that  I  dared  not  decline,"  etc. 

We  ask  how  it  was  possible  for  the  "  nnmber  of  the  Ves- 
try" to  knoAV  the  opinion  of  the  congregation  immediately 
after  the  service,  since  it  was  impossible  for  a  canvass  to  have 
been  made. 

Again,  we  ask  who  were  the  "  number  of  the  Vestry" 
whom  Dr.  Rumney  assembled  ?  Of  twelve,  the  total  num- 
ber of  the  Vestry,  we  know  that  Messrs.  Powers,  Le  Boutil- 
lier,  Miskey,  Spencer,  W".  C.  Houston,  Clark,  Mellor  and 
Kill<5,  were  not  assembled.     This,  then,  was  the  criterion  from 


39 

which  Dr.  "Riimncy  formed  his  opinion  of  the  unanimity  of 
the  congregation  ! 

5th.  Dr.  Rumney  again  says,  "  the  two  communications 
which  I  have  received  from  you  as  a  committee  are  based 
almost  wholly  upon  the  fact  that  a  prejudice  (as  you  say) 
exists  against  me  in  the  Parish." 

Dr.  Rumney  is  in  error,  the  two  communications  are  not 
based  upon  prejudice,  but  upon  the  conscientious  convic- 
tions of  the  committee,  based  upon  the  principles  on  which 
the  church  was  founded  and  upon  the  wishes  of  the  congre- 
gation. 

6th.  Dr.  Eumney  states  that  he  felt  the  call  was  from  God, 
on  account  of  the  seeming  unanimity  of  the  Parish.  What  is 
his  interpretation  of  the  Divine  Will  now ;  when  so  large  a 
majority  of  the  congregation  is  opposed  to  him  ?  If  the  will 
or  supposed  will  of  the  people  was  an  indication  of  Provi- 
dence then,  is  it  not  so  now  ?  If  Dr.  Rumney  made  the  call 
a  subject  of  prayer  as  an  expression  of  the  Divine  Will, 
should  he  not  now  make  the  same  instrumental  cause  a  sub- 
ject of  prayer,  as  being  possibly  another  means  by  which  the 
Divine  Will  has  chosen  to  act  ? 

Finally,  we  might  allude  to  Dr.  Rumney's  expressions — 
"cruel  persecution,"  "prejudice  created,  not  spontaneously 
arisen,"  "  false  statements  with  which  Philadelphia  has  been 
filled,"  etc., — but  we  do  not  wish  to  do  so. 

We  do  not  wish,  and  by  the  tenor  of  all  our  words  and 
acts  we  can  prove  that  we  do  not  wish  to  make  this  unfor- 
tunate contest  either  bitter  or  personal,  but  to  conduct  it 
with  a  single  end  in  view — our  duty  to  God,  our  Church  and 
ourselves. 

It  is  but  natural  that  you  should  wish  to  know  who  this 
Vestry  are,  and  what  proportion  of  them  desire  the  resigna- 
tion of  Dr.  Rumney.  Are  they  an  ephemeral  majority,  liable 
to  be  at  any  time  ejected  from  oiSce,  or  do  they  fairly  rei> 

reseut  the  wishes  of  the  Congregation  ? 

28* 


(( 

20th  July, 

1854. 

(; 

5th   July, 

1859. 

u 

Easter, 

1863. 

li 

(( 

1867. 

a 

n 

1869. 

u 

11 

1871. 

ii 

11 

a 

40 

"We  will  briefly  answer  these  questions  : — 

Thr.  following,  out  of  twelve  Vestrymen,  desire  the  resig- 
nation of  Dr.  Eumney. 

Thomas  II.  Powers,         elected  20th  June,  1853. 

Charles  Le  Boutillier,  "  "  " 

Anthony  Miskey, 

Charles  Spencer, 

W.  0.  Houston, 

Jacob  Clark, 

"William  Mellor, 

J.  W.  Lewis, 

W.  B.  AYhitney, 

There  were,  thus,  two  new  members  of  the  Vestry  elected 
in  1871  by  the  pew-holders,  to  take  the  place  "of  Mr.  Cren- 
8haw,  the  nominator  of  Dr.  Rumney,  and  Mr.  Shapleigh. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  with  two  exceptions,  the 
Vestry  has  substantially  represented  the  church  for  many 
years,  and  that  these  two  new  members  were  elected,  too,  in 
opposition  to  Dr.  Rumney  as  Rector. 

But,  gentlemen  may  say  that  the  term  of  service  is  nearly 
over,  that  with  the  coming  Easter  election  they  may  cease 
to  be  Vestrymen,  and  successors  be  elected  in  sympathy 
with  Dr.  Rumney. 

Let  these  gentlemen  remember  that  the  highest  possible 
number  of  votes  is  59,  then  let  them  listen  to  this  paper, 
which  pledges  a  full  majority  of  these  voters  to  choose,  at 
the  coming  Easter  election,  a  Vestry,  which  shall  stand 
against  Dr.  Rumney ;  not  nine  to  three,  but  twelve  to  none ! 

We,  the  undersigned,  who  will  be  legal  voters  for  Vestry- 
men of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  at  the  next  Easter 
election,  hereby  declare  our  determination  to  vote  for  a 
Vestry  who  shall  be  in  harmony  with  the  action  of  the  pres- 
ent Vestry,  inasmuch  as  we  believe  the  principles  of  the 

29* 


41 

present    Vestry  are  in  accord  with  tliose   upon  wLiicli   the 
Church  was  originally  established. 

Germantown,  Pa.,  January^  1872. 

Charles  Le  Boutillier,  Thomas  W.  Evans, 

Benj.  Homer,  W.  C.  Houston, 

Joseph  W.  Lewis,  W.  B.  Whitney, 

William  Mellor,  Norton  Johnson, 

J.  A.  Miske3^  Jacob  Clark, 

Thomas  Drake,  Matthias  Maris, 

^.  Miskey,  Edgar  IT.  Butler, 

George  W.  ^fason,  Thomas  H,  Powers, 

Martin  Nixon,  Alexander  H.  Jones, 

H.  Freas,  C.  W.  Robinson, 

Robert  D.  Dunning,  James  Hogg, 

H.  W.  Hieskell,  Lloyd'P.  Smith, 

Samuel  Crowder,  C.  P.  Bayard, 

Thomas  Eodbard,  George  Nugent, 
William  Parker  JSTewlin,  Henry  S.  Tarr, 

Chas.  Spencer,  E.  F.  Shoenberger. 

Does  this  not  prove  that  the  present  Vestry  has  a  right, 
speaking  as  it  does  with  the  weight  of  the  past  in  its  favor, 
to  claim  to  represent  the  future  of  the  Church  ? 

They  do  so  claim,  and  as  a  further  and  final  proof,  they 
invite  your  attention  to  the  comparison  between  the  state  of 
the  Church  as  to  its  contributions  and  its  parochial  work, 
during  the  rectorship  of  Mr.  Atkins  and  of  Dr.  Rumney,  re- 
spectively. 

Let  us  then  examine  the  various  means  which  have  been 
adopted  by  their  Church  to  extend  its  influence  in  the  com- 
munity, and  compare  Christ  condition  under  Mr.  Atkins' 
rectorsbip,  with  their  condition  under  Dr.  Rumney's  rector- 
Bhip. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  enterprise  of  the  Church  was 

the  Mount  Airy  Mission,  which  was  established  and  grew 

steadily  into  a  strength  which  warranted  it  in  assuming  for 

30* 


42 

itself  a  parocliial  organization,  when  it  styled  itself  Grace 
Church,  Mount  Airy,  and  called  Rev.  Mr.  Edwards  to  be 
Rector.  This  Church  is  now  doing  very  well  indeed  and  is 
rapidly  growing,  thus  disseminating  the  same  principles 
that  organized  Christ  Church,  and  being  a  new  evidence  of 
what  those  principles  were.  This  enterprise  was  carried  to 
perfection.  Where  is  there  a  successor  to  it  at  the  present 
time  ? 

2d.  Centre  Mission  is  the  next  enterprise  in  the  order  of 
importance.  Centre  Mission  was  organized  in  i860,  and  a 
fine  building  erected  on  Morton  Street,  where  such  a  Mis- 
sion was  sadly  needed.  Here  was  assembled  a  Sunday. 
School  of  more  than  150  scliolars.  Every  Sunday  afternoon 
there  was  a  prayer-meeting,  while,  week-night  services  of  an 
interesting  kind  were  held  from  time  to  time. 

Centre  Mission  was  a  great  aid  to  the  work  of  home  Mis- 
sions. On  account  of  its  proximity  to  St.  Michael's  Church, 
it  has  been  sold  to  that  Vestry.  But  the  workers  who  in- 
augurated and  carried  it  on  are  ready  now  and  waiting  for 
some  new  enterprise  under  a  leader  in  sympathy  with  them. 
The  Church  which  once  spread  its  aggressive  Missionary 
arms  over  the  entire  community,  is  now  making  desperate 
eiforts  to  maintain  successfully  a  defensive  attitude. 

There  was,  during  the  winter  months  of  former  years,  in 
the  basement  of  Christ  Church,  a  free  reading  room,  where 
the  daily  and  weekly  newspapers  and  other  interesting  litera- 
ture, attracted  many  visitors  and  paved  the  way  for  the  edu- 
cational influence  that  soon  began  their  work  in  the  same 
place.  Weekly  lectures  were  given  upon  popular  and  in- 
structive subjects,  which  were  largely  attended.  A  teacher 
was  engaged,  and  all  who  cared  to  impi'ove  themselves  were 
here  welcomed  and  carefully  taught  the  elementary  branches 
of  education. 

This  extremely  valuable  work  was  carried  on  by  volun- 
tary contributions  from  mendjcrs  of  the  Parish,  and  prom- 
ised immense  advantages  to  the  work  of  Christ,  but  it  has 

31* 


43 

perished.  There  is  no  longer  school  or  lecture,  or  reading 
room. 

There  was  under  Mr.  Atkins'  personal  instruction  a  Bible 
class  of  men,  each  Sunday  afternoon  ;  fifty  members  were  on 
its  roll,  and  it  is  found  that  th'e  average  attendance  was  from 
twenty  to  forty. 

This  Bible  class  still  exists.  It  is  taught  by  Dr.  Eumney. 
The  average  attendance  is  from  four  to  eight!  Cottage 
readings  were  favorite  enterprise  with  the  lady-members  of 
the  Cliurch,  and  many  and  valuable  are  the  members  of  the 
Church  now  who  were  first  interested  in  Christ  at  those  meet- 
ings. These  too  are  gone.  The  Missionary  spirit  seems  dead 
among  us,  and  we  gladly  finish  the  comparison  here  and 
present  to  you  the  tabular  comparison  of  the  collections  of 
the  Church. 

Objects  of  Collection.  Average  of  five  years,  from  1865  to  18G9,  inclusive. 

1871. 
Foreign  Missions,  $1058  71  $41  82 

Episcopal  Hospital,  288  44  Go  50 

Disabled  Clergy,  137  86  50  75 

Evangelical  Education  Society,    280  17  58  95 

Average  of  four  years.,  '65,  '66,  '68  and  '69. 
Evangelical  Knowledge  Society,  143  72  48  00 

Our  narrative  is  now  concluded,  and  you  have  the  case 
before  you.  We  have  followed  the  history  of  the  Church 
down  to  the  present  time,  in  order  that  you  may  understand 
fully  on  what  grounds  we  desire  the  dissolution  of  the  pas- 
toral relation  between  Dr.  Rumney  and  the  Parish  of  Christ 
Church,  seeing  that  we  prefer  no  charges  against  Dr.  Rum- 
ney,  of  any  specific  default  as  Rector,  we  have  attempted  to 
show  that  the  Church  was  founded  for,  and  had  always  been, 
an  Evangelical  Church ;  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  elected  under 
a  misapprehension  and  misconception,  both  of  his  views  on 
church  politics,  and  of  the  opinion  of  his  nominators.  That 
although  he  was  welcomed  at  first  by  willing  hearts,  there 
soon  sprung    up  dissatisfaction  in  the  Church.     That  this 


44 

unfortunate  feeling  resulted  from  liis  own  action ;  and  not 
any  fault  of  the  Parish ;  that  under  the  administration  of 
Dr.  Rumney  the  Congregations  dwindled  down  ;  that  many 
of  the  members,  retaining  their  pews  in  Christ  Church  in  the 
hope  of  a  change,  sought  a  temporary  home  in  other 
churches  ;  that  the  collections  decreased  ;  that  the  missionary 
work  of  the  Church  died  out,  almost  entirely  ;  that  a  ticket, 
professedly  to  support  Dr.  Rumney  as  Eector  of  Christ 
Church,  was  overwhelmingly  defeated  at  the  Easter  election 
in  1871,  although  the  most  thorough  and  determined  canvass 
was  made ;  that  the  Vestry  in  May,  1871,  requested  Dr. 
Rumney's  resignation  in  the  most  respectful  and  kindly 
manner ;  that  in  doing  so  they  were  actuated  Jjy  a  profound 
sense  of  duty,  and  frequently  deplored  the  unpleasantness  of 
their  task,  while  they  repeatedly  and  earnestly  endeavored  to 
perform  their  evident  duty  in  such  a  manner  as  to  put  Dr. 
Rumney  to  as  little  pain  and  inconvenience  as  was  possible ; 
that  all  their  advances  were  met  with  direct  and  positive 
opposition ;  iinally,  that  the  Vestry  represents  the  congrega- 
tion in  the  fullest  possible  manner,  and  that  the  pew-holders 
have  pledged  themselves  to  support  them  at  the  next  elec- 
tion. These  are  the  grounds  on  which  we  beg  to  rest  our 
case,  and  to  ask  that  Dr.  Rumney  resign.  We  regret  exceed- 
ingly the  necessary  publicity  of  a  reference,  and  we  have 
shown  that  it  is  not  our  fault. 

Warmly  attached  to  the  Church-home  of  so  many  years, 
looking  back  on  the  times  that  are  gone,  upon  the  vicissi- 
tudes in  our  lives  that  she  has  recorded,  in  her  solemn  offices 
of  baptism,  confirmation,  burial,  performed  within  her  sacred 
walls  on  those  near  and  dear  to  us,  it  is  with  strong  emotion 
that  we  contend  for  the  preservation  of  our  sanctuary  from 
change ;  that  "  we  shrink  from  singing  a  new  song  in  a 
strange  land." 

Confident  in  the  certainty  that  we,  and  we  only  represent 
the  principles  of  the  church  from  its  foundation,  and  in  the 
belief  that  we  are  doing  our  duty  to  God  and  to  our  fellow- 
men  in  this  matter,  we  submit  the  case,  praying  most  ear- 

m* 


45 

nestly  that  God  will  give  you  wisdom  to  decide  in  tliig 
matter  according  to  His  law  and  the  welfare  of  His  faithful 
people.  W.  C.  HOUSTOJS", 

CHAS.  SPENCER, 
JOSEPH  W.  LEWIS, 
W.  i3.  WHITXEY,    Committee. 

The  nndersi2i:ned  members  of  the  Vestry  having  the  pre- 
ceding paper  s  ubmitted  to  them,  hereby  endorse  the  action 
of  the  Committee.  THOS.  H.  POWERS, 

CHARLES  Le  BOUTILLIER, 
A.  MISKEY, 
JACOB  CLARK, 
W^ILLIAM  MELLOR. 


During  the  reading  of  this  document  the  expression  "I 
did,"  attributed  to  Rev.  Dr.  Rumney,  on  page  21*,  was  cor- 
rected by  Dr.  Rumney  and  Mr.  H.  H.  Houston ;  and  it 
was  stated  that  the  expression  used  was  "  I  did  not."  This 
correction  was  assented  to  at  the  time,  and  it  was  men- 
tioned, apologetically,  that  the  statement  was  being  read 
from  a  printer's  proof,  in  which  there  were  a  number  of 
errors,  and  that  the  errors  would  be  corrected. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  statement,  Mr.  Conarroe  said : 
May  it  please  the  Court:  this  statement  has  been  just 
heard  by  us  for  the  first  time.  It  is  a  lengthy  document, 
containing  many  statements  of  facts  and  figures.  The 
complainants  have  had  mouths  in  which  to  prepare  it. 
The  respondent  will  need  time  to  prepare  an  answer.  In 
the  case  of  the  Rev,  Mr.-  Tyng,  thirty  days  were  allowed 
by  the  court  in  which  to  prepare  an  answer.  We  do  not 
wish  any  unnecessary  delay,  but  two  weeks  at  least  will  be 
required,  after  we  have  copies  of  the  statement.  I  there- 
fore move  that  when  the  court  adjourns,  it  adjourns  to 
meet  on  Monday,  February  26th,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

The  Board  then  adjourned  to  meet  on  Monday,  Febru- 
ary 20 th,  1872,  at  10  A.  m. 


SECOiTD  DAY'S   mOCEEDITs^GS. 

The  Board  having  snhseqnently  decided  to  hold  its  next 
meeting  in  the  Vestry  room  of  the  Church  of  the  Epiphany, 
the  Presbyters,  and  parties,  and  counsel,  assembled  there  on 
February  26th,  at  10  a.  m. 

Present — Rev.  Dr.  Beaslet,  Eev.  Dp..  Yarnall,  Eev.  Dr. 
Miller,  Rev.  Dr.  Daviks,  Rev.  Mr.  Perry. 

Lewis  D.  Vail  and  William  S.  Price,  Esqs.,  counsel  for  the 
Vestry. 

Rev.  J.  Andrews  Harris,  clerical  advocate,  and  George  M. 
Conarroe,  Esq.,  counsel  for  the  respondent. 

Mr.  Conarroe  stated  that  it  had  been  found  impossible  to 
have  the  answer  prepared  and  printed;  that  a  delay  had 
been  caused  by  not  getting  early  copies  of  the  statement, 
but  that  the  answer  was  then  in  the  printer's  hands,  and 
would  certainly  be  ready  by  the  following  Thursday.  After 
some  unimportant  discussion  the  Board  adjourned  to  meet 
on  Thursday,  February  29th,  at  3  p.  m. 


:THIRD  DAY'S  PROCEEDmOS. 

February  29,  1872. 

The  Board  of  Presbyters  met  in  the  Vestry  room  of  the 
Church  of  the  Epiphany  at  3  p.  m. 

Fresejit—llEV.  Dr.  Beasley,  Rev.  Dr.  Yarnall,  Rev.  Dr. 
Miller,  Rev.  Dr.  Davies,  Rev.  Mr.  Perry. 

The  complainants  and  their  counsel. 

The  respondent  and  his  counsel. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.     We  have   met   to-day  to   hear  the 
answer  of  the  respondent. 

The  answer  on  behalf  of  the  Rector  was  then  read  by  his 
counsel,  George  M.  Conarroe,  Esq.,  and  was  as  follows  : 

(4G) 


AI^SWER. 

A  Committee  of  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Chnrch,  German- 
town,  W.  C.  Houston,  Charles  Spencer,  Josepli  W.  Lewis, 
and  W.  B.  Whitney,  appointed  "to  confer  with  the  Rector 
on  the  well-being  of  the  parish,"  have  presented  a  statement 
to  this  Board  of  Presbyters  alleging  certain  grounds  of  com- 
plaint against  the  Rector,  and  asking  for  a  dissolution  of  the 
connection  between  the  Rector  and  his  congregation,  under 
Canon  4,  Title  11.  as  amended,  of  the  General  Canons  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  This  action  of  the  committee 
is  endorsed  by  Tnomas  H.  Powers,  Charles  Le  Boutillier,  A. 
Miskey,  Jacob  Clark,  and  William  Mellor.  These  nine  per- 
sons constitute  a  majority  of  the  present  Vestry. 

The  "  statement"  of  the  complainants  is  so  weak,  the 
failure  even  to  make  specific  charges  of  default  against  the 
Rector  such  a  conscious  admission  of  inability  to  prove  any 
default,  and  the  grounds  of  discontent  as  stated  are  so  ex- 
plicitly partisan,  that  the  respondent  might  well  have  been 
willing  to  have  rested  his  case  without  even  a  reply.  But 
the  complainants  have  managed  so  thoroughly  to  entangle 
the  facts  that  an  answer  seems  to  be  imperative. 

The  substance  of  this  "  statement"  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows : 

1.  That  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  was  organized  by 
certain  persons  in  the  interests  of  the  "  Low  Church  party," 
and  that  it  owes  allegiance  not  to  the  church  at.  large  but  to 
the  persons  who  contributed  money  to  its  erection. 

2.  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rumney  was  elected  Rector,  "  unseen, 
unheard,  unknown,"  upon  the  representations  of  certain 
members  of  the  vestry,  which  representations  betrayed  the 
remaining  vestrymen  into  voting  for  him. 

3.  That  "  a  very  short  time  served  to  show  that  Dr. 
Rumney  was  not  '  an  Evangelical  man  as  we  Low  Churchmen 
understand  it,'  and  that  he  was  not  willing  to  support  those 
Evangelical  societies  which  it  had  been  the  invariable  prac- 
tice of  Christ  Church    to    support.     Clergymen    filled    the 

a*  (47) 


48 

pulpit  under  Dr.  Rurauey's  auspices  in  his  exchanges  and 
occasional  absences,  who  had  never  before  addressed  the  con- 
gregation of  Christ  Church,  and  who  were  different  entirely 
in  their  views  from  their  dearly  loved  preachers.  Innova- 
tions were  introduced  in  the  parish  which  were  not  approved 
by  either  the  vestry  or  the  pew  holders." 

4.  That  since  Dr.  Rumney's  rectorship  that  "  once  flourish- 
ing parish"  has  been  reduced  to  a  "paralyzed  condition," 
that  the  missionary  spirit  has  died  out,  that  the  collections 
have  decreased,  that  the  free  reading  room  has  perished, 
that  the  congregation  has  dwindled  down." 

5.  That  the  dissatisfaction  with  Dr.  Rumney  has  "  resulted 
from  his  own  action  and  not  from  any  fault  of  the  jjarish," 
and  that  for  fifteen  years  previous  to  his  rectorship  all  was 
peace,  harmony  and  success. 

6.  That  the  majority  of  the  vestry  in  desiring  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  pastoral  connection  represents  the  congregation 
in  the  fullest  possible  manner. 

I.  As  to  the  origin  of  the  church  organization. 

The  statement  of  the  vestry  begins  with  what  is  called  a 
"  narrative  of  the  foundation  of  the  church,  pre[)ared  by  one 
of  the  corporators,  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  surviving  mem- 
bers of  the  original  corporation."  Of  course  the  only  impres- 
sion conveyed  to  the  reader  by  this  is  that  all  the  surviving 
members  concur.  There  is  no  exception  or  reservation. 
This  narrative  names  Mr.  P.  E.  Hamm  as  the  originator  of  the 
church.  Will  it  be  believed  then  that  the  gentleman  (not 
Mr.  P.  E.  Hamm)  who  really  originated  the  church,  at  whose 
house  the  first  meetings  were  held ;  who  started  a  flourishing 
Sunday  school,  and  had  regular  church  services  for  months 
before  a  vestry  was  thought  of;  who  was  superintendent  of 
the  Sunday  school  for  three  years ;  who  invited  the  co- 
operation of  the  other  gentlemen  in  forming  a  vestry  ;  who 
drew  the  charter  with  his  own  hand  ;  who  was  "one  of  the 
corporators,"  a  member  of  the  first  vestry,  secretary  of  the 
vestry  for  seventeen  months,  and  for  nineteen  years  an  at- 

4* 


49 

tendant  at  the  cLurch  ;  and  v/ho  to-day  is  alive  and  in  good 
health  ;  is  not  even  recognized  iu  this  document  as  a  survi- 
vor ! 

But  IMr.  Potter  shall  he  allowed  to  speak  for  himself.  liis 
letter  will  he  found  in  the  appendix,  and  fully  shows  that 
most  of  the  original  incorporators  had  little  more  than  a 
nominal  connection  with  the  parish,  and  that  the  lot  on  which 
the  church  was  built  was  given  solely  at  Mr.  Potter's  solicita- 
tion by  a  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  has  never 
been  a  Low  Churchman. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  corner  stone  of  the  "  state- 
ment" has  not  been  very  accurately  laid,  and  that  the 
historian  of  Christ  Church,  who  professes  to  be  so  "  familiar 
with  the  causes  which  induced  that  organization,"  has  proved 
himself  to  be,  at  least,  a  very  incautious  chronicler. 

Another  of  the  incorporators,  Mr.  C.  W.  Robinson,  it  will 
be  noticed,  is  still  surviving.  His  signature  also  does  not 
appear  at  the  conclusion  of  the  "  narrative." 

Every  one  knows  how  readily  signatures  are  obtained  and 
how  seldom  documents  are  read  by  the  signers.  Xone  are 
more  surprised  than  those  very  signers  frecpiently  are  at  the 
uses  to  which  their  signatures  are  put.  There  is  nothing  in 
this  narrative,  incorrect  as  it  is,  to  directly  connect  it  with 
a  plan  for  the  removal  of  Dr.  Rumney.  Cne  of  these  orig- 
inal corporators,  who,  for  many  years,  was  accounting 
warden  and  who  is  the  only  one  of  the  "surviving"  signers 
who  has  habitually  attended  the  church  within  twelve  years, 
with  a  frankness  which  does  him  honor,  in  the  following 
letter  disclaims  any  intention  to  pass  judgment  on  Dr. 
Rumney. 

Germantow>^,  Fchruary  16,  1872. 
Rev.  T.  S.  Rumney,  D.  D. 

Dear  Sir  : — In  signing  the  paper,  as  one  of  the  corpora- 
tors of  Christ  Church,  I  only  intended  to  sa}^  that  it  Avasgot 
up  as  a  Low  Church.  Further,  as  I  stated  at  the  time,  I 
know  nothing  about,  as  not  being  a  pew  holder  I  wished 
not  to  take  any  part.  I  did  object  to  the  part  (that  Mr. 
4  5* 


50 

Ilamm  originated  the  chnrch)  which  is  not  exnetl}'  correct. 
As  regards  the  closing  paragraph,  the  insinuation  of  your 
unfitness,  I  do  not  suhscribe  to.  Kot  having  been  inside  the 
chnrch  since  you  have  had  charge,  I  do  not  suppose  I  should 
be  supposed  to  know  anj^thing  about  it.  M}'  family  are  at 
present  thinking  of  taking  a  pew  in  the  church. 

Yours,  &c., 

J.  B.  CIIAMPIOIT. 

Mr.  Edwin  W.  Lehman  and  Mr.  G.  M.  Troutman  also, 
have  stated,  that  in  signing  the  narrative  they  had  no  iuten- 
sion  of  reflecting  in  any  way  on  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rumney;  that 
they  had  never  seen  Dr.  Rumney  or  heard  him  preach,  and 
knew  nothing  of  the  merits  of  the  present  controversy.  Mr. 
Lehman  has  been  in  the  church  but  once  in  eighteen  years. 

As  no  one  of  these  "surviving"  corporators  has  attended 
Christ  Church  for  at  least  eight  years,  and  as  some  of  them 
have  never  attended  it  at  any  time,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 
their  sentiments,  given  in  a  general  w^ay,  are  entitled  to  the 
slightest  weight  in  a  controversy  like  the  present.  But  as 
they  have  chosen  to  certify  that  the  church  was  organized 
in  the  interests  of  the  "  Low  Church  party,"  it  may  be  well 
to  notice  Article  IL  of  tlieir  charter  of  incorporation,  which 
is  as  follows: 

ARTICLE  IL 

"This  church  acknowledges  itself  to  be  a  member  of,  and 
to  belong  to,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  As  such  it  accedes  to,  recog- 
nizes, and  adopts,  the  constitution,  canons,  doctrine,  dk-:ci- 
pline  and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  acknowledges  their  au- 
thority accordingl3^  Any  member  of  this  church  or  corpora- 
tion who  shall  disclaim  or  refuse  conformity  to  the  said 
authority,  shall  cease  to  be  a  member  of  this   corporation, 


51 

aind  shall  not  be  elected,  or  vote  in  tlie  election  for  vestry- 
mcn,  or  exercise  any  office  or  function  in,  concerning  or 
connected  with  the  said  church  or  corporation." 

There  is  nothing  here  ahont  the  "  Low  Church  party,"  hut 
there  is  a  promise  of  conformity  to  the  "Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,"  and  an  ex- 
plicit acknowledgment  of  her  doctrines  and  discipline.  It 
is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  add  that  at  least  one  member  of 
the  present  vestry,  a  complainant  in  this  controversy,  notori- 
ousl}'-  repudiates  some  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  and 
offpnsivelj'  denounces  the  venerable  formulary  in  which  they 
are  stated. 

II.  As  to  the  election  of  Eev.  Dr.  Eumney: 

The  complainants  state  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  first  nomi- 
nated September  7th,  1869,  then  '•'■dropped;''  that  Messrs. 
II.  II.  Houston  and  Crenshaw,  "  constituted  themselves  "  a 
committee  to  go  and  hear  him;  that  they  "  revived "  his 
nomination  on  their  return,  and  that  on  their  statement 
only,  and  especially  after  their  answers  to  certain  questions. 
Dr.  Rumney  was  elected  "  unseen,  unheard,  unknown,"  and 
that  thereby  they  were  beguiled  into  electing  a  rector  who 
was  not  an  "  Evangelical  man." 

At  the  vestry  meeting  in  September,  1869,  Dr.  Rumney, 
Dr.  Canfield,  Dr.  Washburn,  Revs.  0.  Perinchief,  C.  C.  Tif- 
fany and  J.  N.  Stanger  were  nominated.  At  the  October 
meeting  a  ballot  was  had,  with  no  practical  result.  At  the 
same  meeting  "  it  was  moved  that  further  nominations  be 
made  and  that  all  parties  named  at  last  meeting  be  eovtinned  as 
noininees,  which  motions  were  seconded  and  carried,"  as  ap- 
pears by  the  vestry  minutes.  This  plainly  contradicts  the 
statement  that  Dr.  Runniey  was  "dropped."  His  nomina- 
tor never  withdrew  his  name  in  any  way.  •  Two  meetings 
were  held  in  Novemuer  and  one  in  December,  and  no  result 
was  i^eaclied,  except  that  seven  additional  clergymen  were 


52 

nominated.  At  one  of  the  vestry  meetings  Mr.  Powers  was 
asked  if  Dr.  Caniield  was  in  favor  of  secession  from  the 
Episcopal  Church  if  the  Praj^er  Book  was  not  altered.  He 
said  he  did  not  know,  bnt  that  he  was.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  was  not  considered^ safe  to  vote  for  Dr.  Canfield. 
A  large  number  of  the  candidates  were  reconmiended  by 
Ptcv.  iieman  Dyer,  D.D. ;  and  nearly  all  Dr.  Dyer  recom- 
mended were  signers  of  the  testimonial  to  Mr.  Cheney,  of 
Chicago.  It  was  then  agreed  that  each  member  of  the 
vestry  would  visit  the  churches  of  some  of  the  nominated 
candidates  and  report  to  the  vestry.  Messrs.  W.  C.  Houston 
and  Spencer,  in  accordance  with  this  arrangement,  "  consti- 
tuted themselves "  a  committee  to  hear  the  Rev.  J.  W. 
Drown.  Messrs.  Crenshaw  and  Kille  did  the  same  on 
another  occasion.  Mr.  H.  H.  Houston  "constituted  him- 
self" a  committee  to  go  and  hear  Rev.  Mr.  Langford.  He 
did  not  hear  him,  but  inquired  about  him,  reported  favora- 
bly to  the  vestry,  and  Mr.  Langford  was  unanimously 
elected.  He  declined  the  election,  and  was  again  unani- 
mously urged  to  come,  but  declined.  Messrs.  H.  H.  Houston 
and  Crenshaw  then  went  to  hear  Dr.  Rumney.  They  had 
precisely  the  same  authority  any  vestryman  had  previously 
had.  No  more,  no  less.  They  reported  favorably.  But  Dr. 
Eumney  was  also  recommended  by  Bishop  Johns  of  Virginia, 
in  a  letter  to  a  parishioner  of  Christ  Church,  by  Bishop  Stevens 
to  Mr.  Crenshaw,  his  nominator,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Childs, 
and  the  Rev.  Samuel  Durborow,  all  certainly  recognized  as 
"  Evangelical  men."  Bishop  Stevens  stated  that  he  knew  of 
Dr.  Rumney,  and  that  "  the  vestry  would  be  safe  in  electing 
him  without  hearing  him."  Dr.  Childs  was  expressly 
quoted  by  two  of  the  complainants  as  partly  deciding  them 
in  their  minds  how  to  vote.  Dr.  Rumney  was  unanimously 
elected,  ten  vestryfiien  being  present  and  voting  for  him, 
viz.:  Messrs.  W.  C.  Houston,  Le  Boutillier,  Mellor,  Clark, 
Miskey,  Crenshaw,  H.  H.  Houston,  Ivill6,  Kingston  and 
Schaetter. 

But  the  complainants  now  say  that  certain  questions  were 


53 

asked  of  and  answered  by  Messrs.  11.  H.  Houston  and  Cren- 
sluiw,  by  which  they  were  misled  (p.  8),  as  follows: 

"  Is  Dr.  Rumney  an  Evangelical  man  as  we  Low  Church- 
men understand  it? 

Ans.  Yes. 

Is  Dr.  Rumney  willing  to  support  the  Evangelical  so- 
cieties, and  only  those,^  as  it  has  been  the  invariable  practice 
of  Christ  Church  to  sujjport  ? 

Ans.  Yes." 

This  statement  is  not  correct.  The  questions  were  not  so 
asked,  and  the  answers  were  not  so  given.  What  was  asked 
and  answered  and  stated  will  appear  by  the  following  certifi- 
cate of  five  of  the  vestrymen  then  present  and  voting,  two 
of  whom  answered  the  questions. 

"  The  undersigned  hereby  certify  that  the  following  is  a 
correct  statement  of  the  proceedings  of  the  vestrj^  meeting  at 
which  Dr.  Rumney  was  elected : 

"  The  statement  made  by  Messrs.  H.  TI.  Houston  and 
Crenshaw  was  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  a  man  Evangelical  in 
his  doctrine,  a  conservative  Prayer  Book  Churchman,  and 
not  a  party  man.  On  being  asked  whether  he  bowed  in  the 
creed,  the  reply  was  he  did.  On  being  asked  how  he  voted 
in  convention,  the  reply  was,  such  a  question  was  not  proper 
to  be  asked  of  a  gentleman,  but  that  we  supposed  he  would 
act  as  his  conscience  dictated.  After  the  balloting  had  com- 
menced and  seven  had  voted,  A.  Miskey  stated  that  he  had 
that  day  seen  the  Rev.  Dr.  Childs,  who  told  him  that  Dr. 
Rumney  was  Evangelical  in  his  doctrine,  an  excellent  pastor, 
a  hard  worker  in  his  parish  and  a  good  Sunday  school  man, 
and  that  he  would  suit  our  congregation  admirably.  Mr. 
Miskey  then  said  that  he  voted  partly  on  the  representation 
of  the  two  gentlemen  who  had  seen  Dr.  Rumney,  and  partly 
upon  the  recommendation  of  Dr.  Child?,  as  above  expressed. 
AV^  C.  Houston  then  said  that  he  was  willing  to  vote  for  any 
man  endorsed  by  Dr.  Childs,  and,  therefore,  cast  his  ballot. 
After  which,  Mr.  Le  Boutillier  did  the  same. 

9* 


51 

"  The  undersigned  deny  positiTely  that  the  question  was 
asked  '  Whether  Dr.  Kumuey  was  an  Evangelical  man  as  ice 
Low  Churchmen  understand  it'  We  also  deny  that  the  question 
was  asked,  '  Whether  Dr.  Eumney  was  willing  to  support 
the  Evangelical  societies,  ujid  only  those.' 

H.  H.  HOUSTON, 
S.  D.  KINGSTON, 
JOS.  A.  SCIIAEFFER, 
SAMUEL  K.  KILLfi, 
E.  A.  CEENSHAW." 
February  15,  1872. 

How  totally  different  is  this  from  the  statement  put  forth 
by  the  majority  of  the  present  vestry.  The  accuracy  of  the 
committee's  statement  may  be  further  judged  by  the  aid  of 
this  noteworthy  fact.  Only  one  of  the  committee  of  four 
which  prepared  it  was  present  at  the  vestry  meeting  where 
the  conversation  occurred.  Mr.  Spencer  was  in  Europe,  and 
Messrs.  Lewis  and  Whitney  were  not  then  in  the  vestry. 
Comment  is  needless. 

The  vestry  appointed  Messrs.  Le  Boutillier  (now  one  of 
the  complainants),  H.  H.  Houston,  and  Crenshaw,  a  commit- 
tee to  inform  Dr.  Eumney  of  his  election,  and  the  following 
letter  was  sent  by  them  : 

Germantown,  February  18,  1870. 

Eev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — It  gives  us  great  pleasure  to  notify 
you  of  your  unanimous  election  to  the  Rectorship  of  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  and  to  hand  you  a  copy  of  the  resolu- 
tions passed  at  a  meeting  of  the  vestry  yesterday,  viz. :  '■'■  lie- 
solved^  That  Messrs.  H.  H.  Houston  and  Crenshaw,  with  the 
warden,  be  a  committee  to  inform  the  Eev.  T.  S.  Eumney, 
D.  D.,  of  his  unanimous  election  as  Eector  of  this  parish,  at 
an  annual  salary  of  two  thousand  five  hundred  (2,500jdollars, 
with  use  of  the  parsonage.  Resolved^  That  an  additional 
sum  of  five  hundred  (500)  dollars,  to  be  paid  in  advance,  be 
appropriated  to  defray  the  expenses  of  his  removal." 

10* 


55 

"We  believe  that  the  unanimity  of  the  vestry  in  extend- 
ing you  this  call  is  a  cle<Qr  indication  of  the  guidance  of 
Divine  Providence,  and  we  trust  it  may  be  so  regarded  by 
you  and  cause  your  early  acceptance  of  the  trust. 

The  long  period  which  has  elapsed  since  we  have  had  a 
Eector,  has  caused  a  serious  reduction  in  the  revenue  of  the 
church ;  the  vestry  hope  that  this  state  of  things  will  be 
changed  with  your  acceptance  of  the  charge,  and  that  we 
bliall  soon  be  enabled  to  otler  you  an  increase  of  salary. 

With  sentiments  of  high  regard,  we  remain  very  sincerely 
and  truly  yours. 

CHAELES  LE  BOUTILLIEE, 

Warden. 
II.  II.  HOUSTON, 
E.  A.  CEENSIIAW. 

To  Eev.  T.  S.  Eumney,  D.  D. 


Before  accepting  the  call.  Dr.  Eumney  visited  German- 
town.  The  ten  members  of  the  vestry  who  voted  for  him, 
and  other  members  of  the  congregation  were  invited  to  meet 
him.  A  large  number  came.  Full  conversations  were  held 
with  him  by  Mr.  LeBoutillier,and  other  members  of  the  vestry 
and  congregation,  and  ample  opportunity  was  given  to  ask 
any  questions.  On  the  following  Sunday  he  preached.  After 
the  evening  service,  he  said  that  if  he  thought  there  would 
be  any  opposition  to  him  in  the  parish,  he  would  not  enter- 
tain the  call.  Mr.  IMiskey  (now  a  complainant)  assured  hiiu 
t^hat  there  was  no  danger  on  that  score.  Xot  a  murnmr 
of  dissatisfaction  was  breathed  at  that  time  by  any  one. 
How  disingenuous  is  it  therefore  in  the  complainants  to  say 
(page  27)  Messrs.  Le  Boutillier,  Miskey,  Spencer,  W.  C. 
Houston,  &c.,  were  not  assembled  1  Had  not  the  vestry 
elected  Dr.  Eumney  unanimously  ?  Did  Dr.  Eunniey  require 
any  further  evidence  from  those  ten  gentlemen  than  they  had 
already  given  by  their  vote?  As  for  Mr.  Spencer,  he  was  in 
Europe  ;  and  how  the  writer  of  the  statement  could  have  the 

11* 


56 

boldneF^s  to  insiimato  that  ho  ought  also  to  have  been  "  assem- 
bled," it  is  difficult  to  imagine. 

Under  these  circumstances,  Dr.  Rnmncy  accepted  the  call, 
left  the  parish  where  he  had  lived  in  peace  and  harmony  for 
"  fifteen  years,"  and  came  to  Germantown,  trusting  that  the 
promises  of  sympathy  and  hearty  support  would  be  made  good. 
To  quote  from  the  "statement:"  "On  the  1st  of  May  he 
came  into  residence  in  Germantown,  amid  the  prayers  and 
good  Welshes  of  an  earnest  people,  delighted  that  they  had 
ao;ain  a  Rector,  and  eager  to  resume  in  a  rearular  manner 
their  much-loved  work  in  the  parish.  They  hoped  that  the 
most  prosperous  days  of  the  church  were  to  be  renewed,  and 
that  other  and  greater  benefits  were  to  result  to  the  commu- 
nity from  the  revived  influence  of  Christ  Church.  But,  alas  ! 
this  feeling  did  not  continue." 

Why  did  not  this  feeling  continue,  and  when  did  it  begin 
to  falter?  On  the  return  from  Europe  of  Mr.  Charles 
Spencer,  about  the  last  of  June,  1870.  This  gentleman, 
though  an  avowed  Methodist,  and  though  baptized,  refusing 
to  be  confirmed^  was  a  member  of  the  vestry  in  direct  contra- 
vention of  the  spirit  of  the  second  article  of  the  charter  of 
Christ  Church. 

III.  Next,  it  is  asserted  that  Dr.  Rumne3^soon  proved  that 
he  was  not  an  "  Evangelical  man,  as  we  Low  Churchmen  un- 
derstand it." 

If  by  this  is  meant  that  Dr.  Eumney  was  not  an  "  Evan- 
gelical man,"  as  Low  Churchmen  generally  understand  it — 
the  statement  is  unwarranted  in  fact.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  meant  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  not  a  law-breaker,  or  a  de- 
nouncer of  the  Prayer  Book,  or  a  sympathizer  with  such 
cheap  "  martyrs"  as  young  Mr.  Tyng  and  Mr.  Cheney,  the 
statement  is  true.  But  his  views  were  and  are  Evan- 
gelical, and  his  sermons  and  services  were  such  as  are 
usual  in  Evangelical  churches.  Nothing  has  been  pointed 
out  in  his  sermons  or  services  to  which  anj-  exception  could 

be  justly  taken.     No  complaint  whatever  was  made  by  any 

12* 


57 

one  iinfil  Mi\  Spencer's  return  from  Europe,  and  the  com- 
plaints which  were  then  originated  by  that  gentleman — and 
which  were  carried  by  him,  and  some  of  those  who  sympa- 
thized with  him,  to  the  Bishop — were  of  so  vague  and  frivo- 
lous a  character  that  the  Bishop  felt  compelled  to  declare 
that  Dr.  Eumney  stood  before  him  with  an  "  uiiimpeached 
ministerial  record."  • 

Bishop  Steven's'  letter  to  Dr.  Eumney,  on  this  subject,  is 
as  follows: — 

Philadelphia,  September  30,  1871. 

Rev.  A^'D  Deau  Sir  : — I  have  received  your  note  of  the  28th 
instant,  in  which  you  say,  "  I  would  respectfully  ask  if  you 
cannot  give  to  my  ministry  in  Christ  Church  that  moral 
sanction  which  shall  tend  to  allay  any  prejudice  which  may 
have  arisen  in  some  minds  from  a  misapprehension,  and 
enable  me  with  greater  confidence  to  fultil  the  arduous 
duties  which  have  my  thought,  my  strength,  my  love." 
At  the  close  of  your  note  you  again  ask  "  as  a  matter  of 
equity  if  I  may  not  have  from  you,  not  ex  cafhedra,  but  as 
my  spiritual  adviser,  some  expression  which  will  remove  the 
opprobrium  cast  upon  me  by  some  to  the  temporary  curtail- 
ing of  my  usefulness  in  the  church  of  my  Master." 

To  these  requests  I  bog  leave  to  say  that  you  have  already 
every  "  moral  sanction  "  which  I  can  give  to  one  who  stands 
before  me  to-day  as  you  do,  free  from  all  personal  or  canonical 
reproach,  and  with  an  unimpeached  ministerial  record.  I 
have  confidence  in  your  piet}-,  your  honesty,  your  lidelity 
to  gospel  truth,  and  in  your  single  desire  to  win  souls  to 
Christ.  The  reasons  which  have  been  given  to  me  by  those 
wishing  your  removal,  are  hot  so  much  based  on  what  you 
have  done,  as  on  the  anticipations  of  what  you  may  do.  To 
deal,  hoAvever,  with  inferential  evils,  when  these  inferences 
have  but  little  if  any  basis  of  attested  fact,  is  beyond  the 
scope  of  civil  or  canon  law. 

You  have  assured  me  again  and  again  that  your  views  are 

unchanged  from  what  they  Avere  when  j'ou  were  unanimously 

13* 


58 

elected  Rector  of  Christ  Cliurch  ;  that  yon  never  depigned 
makiiig  any  changes  in  the  services  or  in  the  ecclesiastical 
status  of  that  parish  ;  and  that  your  sympathies  were  with  the 
general  doctrines  and  policy  of  that  class  of  men  with  which 
Christ  Church  has  usually  heen  identified.  Hence,  having 
DO  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  these  assertions,  I  cannot 
but  regret  the  keeping  up  of  agitation  on  these  points  as  un- 
necessary and  unwise,  and  as  detrimental  alike  to  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  your  parish. 

Trusting  that  by  your  sound  and  wliolesome  doctrine  in 
the  pulpit,  and  your  prudent  and  godly  conduct  as  a  pastor, 
you  may  elfectually  ])\xt  to  silence  the  opposition  which  now 
disquiets  your  heart  and  your  parish, 

I  remain  \QYy  truly  yours, 

WM.  BACOi^  STEVENS. 

Eev.  Theo.  S.  Eumney,  D.  D. 

The  following  reply  was  sent  by  Dr.  Eumney : 

Eectory  of  Christ  Church, 

Germantown,  October  2,  1871. 
Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear  Bishop: — Your  reply  to  my  letter 
reached  me  this  evening,  and  I  thank  you  sincerely  for  your 
kind  words.  To  one  part  of  that  reply,  I  beg  leave  to  allude, 
that  in  any  future  reference  to  it  there  may  be  no  misunder- 
standing on  the  part  of  any. 

You  say  you  have  been  assured  by  me  that  my  sympathies 
"  are  with  the  general  doctrine  and  policy  of  that  class  of 
men  with  Avhich  Christ  Church  has  usually  been  identitied." 
By  this  I  understand  you  not  to  mean  that  I  sympathize 
with  any  who  would  destroy  the  unity  of  the  church,  or  ou 
either  side  disclaim  or  reject  her  authority  and  long  estab- 
lished customs  and  usages.  Such  persons,  in  my  opinion,  go 
contrary  to  what  my  judgment  teaches  me  is  right,  and  also 
are  in  conflict  with  what  I  take  the  liberty  of  presuming 
from  his  published  stateuients,  are  the  opinions  of  my 
Bishop. 

14* 


59 

"With  this  unflei'stancling,  I  can  assure  yon,  that  it  shall 
be  my  purpose  (God  being  my  helper)  to  persevere  in  the 
maintenance  of  that  gospel  truth,  and  that  character  of 
churchmanship  which  have  hitherto  marked  my  life,  stand- 
ing before  you,  as  you  say  in  your  letter  to  me,  "with 
unimpeached  ministerial  record." 

Still  trusting  in  Him  who  has  ever  sustained  me,  I  shall 
hope  to  discharge  the  duties  of  my  responsible  position  in  a 
satisfactory  manner,  and  above  all  so  as  to  have  Ills  divine 
approval. 

I  remain  faithfully  and  truly  your  son  in  the  church, 

THEODORE  S.  EUMXEY. 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Stevexs. 


The  statement  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  unwilling  to  sup- 
port the  Evangelical  societies  is  equally  unfounded.  A  card 
had  been  prepared  by  Dr.  Rumney's  predecessor,  Rev.  JSIr. 
Atkins,  giving  a  list  of  all  the  collections  outside  of  paro- 
chial objects.  This  list  embraced  all  the  "  Evangelical  so- 
cieties," which  it  had  been  the  "  practice  of  Christ  Church  to 
support."     This  card  was  as  follows  : 


.    CHRIST  CHURCH, 

GERMAX'TOWN   (PHILADELPHIA). 

Co'nlrihations. 

Besides  the  regular  Communion  offerings,  and  the  collec- 
tions for  incidental  church  expeusua,  coilectiunci  wm  uu  made 
for  the  following  objects  : 
January 
February 
}vlarch 

Ai)ril Diocesan  Missions. 

May , ±'.  h.  rreeuniaiit)  Commission. 

ID* 


60 

June Sunday  Schools  of  the  Parish. 

July Evangelical  Knowledge  Society. 

A  ugust Evangelical  Education  Society. 

September Domestic  and  Foreign  Missions. 

October Support  of  Episcoj^ate. 

November Parish  Missions. 

Peceniber Sunday  School  Anniversary. 

Thanksgiving  Day Episcopal  Hospital. 

Christmas  Day Disabled  Clergymen. 

"  GOD  loveth  a  cheerful  giver."— 2  Cor.  IX.,  7. 

A.  B.  ATKINS, 

Hector. 


Dr.  Rumney  followed  the  order  prescribed  on  this  card, 
and  all  the  collections  named  on  it  w^ere  regularly  made. 

But  strange  clergymen  preached  "  in  his  exchanges  and 
occasional  absences,  wdio  had  never  before  addressed  the  con- 
gregation of  Clirist  Church,  and  who  were  diiferent  entirely 
in  their  views  from  their  dearly  loved  preachers ;"  and  inno- 
vations were  introduced.  The  "innovations'.'  which  were 
most  complained  of  were,  that  Rev.  Dr.  Twing,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions,  was  allowed  to  make  an 
address,  and  that  the  other  Episcopal  clergymen  in  German- 
town  were  allowed  to  preach  jn  Christ  Church,  and  were 
united  with  in  religious  services.  The  latter  was  in  con- 
formit}^  with  the  very  proper  desire  of  Bishop  Stevens,  that 
at  least  a  friendly  accord  should  exist  between  the  Rector 
of  Christ  Church  and  his  Episcopal  brethren  in  Germantown, 
and  that  the  former  state  of  non-intercourse  should  cease. 

Dr.  Rumney  only  exchanged  services  with  four  clergymen, 
viz.:  his  successor  at  White  Plains,  Rev.  Mr.  Van  Kleeck, 
Rev.  Mr.  Davidson,  of  Conshohocken,  Rev.  Dr.  Yarnall,  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Perry.  Among  the  clergymen  who  wci-e  invited 
to  preach  may  be  named  Rev.  Mr.  Atkins,  Rev.  Dr.  Childs, 
Rev.  Dr.  Watson,  Rev.  Mr.  Wadleigh,  Rev.  Mr.  Jaggar, 
Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  and  Rev.  R.  C.  Matlack.  In  order  that 
the  exact  amount  uf  damage  iuilicted  on  the  complainants 


61 

maybe  asccrtainefl,  a  full  list  of  all  the  Lisliops  and  olersj^ 
\vlio  have  in  any  way  officiated  during  Dr.  Rumney's  rec- 
torship, is  printed  in  the  appendix.  It  is  worth  mentioning 
that  among  those  who  preached  j^reviousbj,  for  Rev.  Mr.  At- 
kins, was  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hopkins,  of  Vermont,  who 
was  not  considered  by  some  a  strictly  "  Evangelical  man." 

IV.  The  most  serious  charge  made  by  the  complainants  is 
that  since  Dr.  Rumney's  rectorship,  that  "  once  flourishing 
parish"  has  been  reduced  to  a  "  paralyzed  condition  ;"  that 
the  missionary  spirit  has  died  out ;  that  the  collections  have 
decreased  ;  that  the  free  reading  room  has  perished  ;  that 
the  congregation  has  "  dwindled  down." 

There  is  the  same  lack  of  foundation  for  these  statements 
— and  a  suppression  of  important  facts  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  give  an  impression  the  opposite  of  the  truth.  Any  reader 
of  the  "  statement"  would  suppose  that  the  free  reading  room, 
&c,,  had  perished  at  the  hands  of  Dr.  Rumney.  It  was  un- 
successful and  was  abandoned  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Atldns.  Xo 
one  would  inter  fix)m  the  "statement,"  that  Centre  Mission, 
that "  great  aid  to  the  work  of  Home  Missions,"  had  been  sold 
to  St.  Michael's  Church,  before  ]\Ir.  Atkin's  resignation  and 
against  his  advice ;  and  that  Mr.  Charles  Spencei-,  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  to  consider  the  sale,  had  said  at  that 
time  (18G9),  the  vestry  were  acting  independently  of  the 
Rector;  that  "  Mr.  Atkins  had  overstaid  his  time,  and  should 
have  left  five  years  before."  Yet  such  was  the  case.  But  the 
complainants  say, "  the  workers  who  inaugurated  and  carried 
it  on  are  ready  and  waiting  for  some  new  enterprise  under  a 
leader  in  sympathy  with  them."  Mr.  Bany,  however,  who 
was  Superintendent  of  Centre  Mission,  and  Trustee  of  the 
property,  says  that  "  This  work  was  carried  on  by  Mr.  W. 
C.  Taylor,  Mr.  Delacroix,  Mr.  Cardwell,  Mr.  Elkins,  Mr. 
Iville,  Mr.  Tarr  and  myself,  and  also  a  few  lady  members 
of  Christ  Church,"  and  thus  writes: 

"  With  regard  to '•  the  loorkers  who  inaugurated,''  this  mis 
sion  and  carried   it  on,  who   were  the  persons  mentioned 

17* 


62 

ahove,  they  have  all  disappearecl  with  the  exception  of  my- 
self. Mv.  Taylor  now  resides  in  Haddonfield,  X.  J. ;  Mr. 
iJelacroix  is  dead  ;  Mr.  Card  well  is  not  with  us  ;  Mr.  Elkins 
lives  in  the  city,  and  Mr.  Tarr  has  long  since  given  up  his 
interest,  and,  indeed,  I  may  say  that  none  of  the  old  workers 
are  in  any  condition  to  take  up  another  enterprise  of  like  char- 
acter." Mr.  Barry  further  states  that  the  huilding  was  sold^ 
because  little  interest  was  taken  by  Christ  Church  in  the 
work,  and  it  could  no  longer  he  successfully  carried  on. 

That  the  missionary  spirit  has  not  "  died  out"  is  evidenced 
by  the  fact  that  a  mission  in  Lehman  street  is  now  carried 
on  under  Dr.  liununey,  which  is  fully  as  successful  as  Ce-ntre 
Mission. 

That  the  parish  has  not  been  reduced  to  a  "  paralyzed 
condition,"  is  proved  by  the  following  comparative  state- 
ment : 

In  1868,  under  the  "  prosperous  "  rectorship  of  Mr.  Atkins, 
there  were9-i  pews  and  p'arts  of  pews  rented  and  occupied  by 
103  tenants.  While  the  Eev.  Mr.  Stanger  was  in  charge, 
there  were  rented  89  pews,  and  parts  of  pews  occupied  by  97 
tenants. 

Ii'i  1872,  under  the  rectorship  of  Rev.  Dr.  Eumney,  there 
are  rented  106  pews  and  parts  of  pews  occupied  by  119  ten- 
ants. This  shovv's  that  12  more  pews  and  parts  of  pews  are 
rented,  occupied  by  16  more  tenants,  than  in  the  time  of  Mr. 
Atkins.  There  is  not  now  a  vacant  pew  to  rent  in  the 
church.  The  congregations  have  never  been  larger  than 
now,  and  it  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  falling  off  in 
revenue  before  Dr.  Rumney  came  is  expressly  admitted  in 
the  letter  calling  him,whicfi  letter  is  signed  l)y  Mr.  Le  Dout- 
illicr,  Warden.  Indeed,  strong  corroborative  evidence  of  the 
depressed  condition  of  the  church  previously  is  furnished  by 
the  statement  itself  (p.  8).  The  committee  say  that  on  Dr. 
Kuraney's  arrival,  the  people  were  "  eager  to  resume  in  a 
regular  way  their  much  loved  work  in  the  parish."  They 
could  not  "  resume  "  what  they  had  not  left  olll    Again,  they 

18* 


63 

hoped  that  the  most  "  prosperous  clays  of  the  church  were  to 
be  renewed,"  and  looked  for  "  greater  benefits  "  from  the 
"  revived  influence  of  Christ  Church."  This  is  a  tolerably 
plain  confession  that  the  church  had  been  going  sadly 
behindhand  under  somebody. 

Dr.  Rumney  then,  instead  of  "paral3-zing"  the  parish,  has 
raised  it  from  a  depressed  condition,  notwithstanding  the 
opposition  of  the  small  circle  of  complainants,  and  under  his 
rectorship  shows  a  better  record  in  this  respect  than  either 
of  his  predecessors.  How  manifestly  unfounded  therefore  is 
the  statement  of  his  opponents,  that  he  has  "  changed  that 
once  flourishing  parish  to  a  paralyzed  condition  1 "  '^' 

As  to  the  collections  for  the  Evangelical  Societies,  etc., 
the  tabulated  statement  (p.  32)  of  the  contributions  for 
specific  objects,  professing  to  compare  the  "  average  of  five 
years,  from  1865  to  1869,  inclusive,"  with  the  amount  con- 
tributed in  1871,  and  thereby  to  show  how  "paralyzed"  the 
parish  has  become  under  Dr.  Rnmney's  pastorate,  contains 
so  many  glaring  misrepresentations  that  it  is  diiflcult  to 
believe  that  it  could  have  been  put  forth  b}^  the  complainants. 

The  complainants  state  that  while  the  average  contribu- 
tions for  the  years  1865  to  1869,  inclusive,  for  Foreign 
Missions  were  ^1,058.71,  yet  that  in  1871,  the  amount  con- 
tributed was  only  §11.82 ! 

*  A  trivial  conversation  between  Mr.  Spencer  and  Dr.  Tumney  is 
detailed  on  p.  20  of  the  "  statement,"  and  when  this  was  read  before  the 
court,  it  was  admitted  that  Dr.  R.'s  answer  was  "  I  did  not,''  and  not  "I 
did,"  as  then  read  from  the  "proof"  of  the  printer.  Correction  was 
promised,  but  has  not  been  made,  and  the  pamphlet  appears  perpetuating 
this  improper  report  of  Dr.  Rumney's  language.  Between  September  2d 
and  4lh,  Sunday  intervened,  and  Monday's  post  brought  Mr.  Spencer's 
copy  (not  the  original  as  requsted),  about  ten  minutes  (not  thirty-si.x  hours) 
before  the  letter  to  him  was  mailed.  As  several  pages  rf  criticism  arc 
expended  by  the  comphrinants,  based  upon  wliat  the  Rector  did  rtot  say,  it 
lias  been  thought  well  to  insert  this  note.  In  the  same  connection  it  may 
be  mentioned  that  while  Mr.  \V.  C.  Houston's  "severe  "  note  of  August 
2.";fh,  is  printed  at  huve,  his  note  of  September  20th,  to  Dr.  Rumucy,  apolo- 
gizing for  the  former,  is  not  printed  at  all.     (See  appendix.) 


G4 

The  "  Spirit  of  ^rip?ions"  contains  the  following  acknow- 
ledgments for  Foreign  Missions  during  1871,  viz. : 

In  June  Xo.  Christ  Church,  Germantown $873  51 

"  July  Xo.  "  "  Sunday 

school 32  10 

"  Xov.  Xo.   Christ  Church,  Germantown,  Sunday 

school 32  95 

Jan.  No.,  1872,  amounts  received  prior  to  Dec.  1st, 
1871,  viz.: 

Christ  Church,  Germantown 41  82 

Thos.  Drake 550  00 

Chas.  Spencer 550  00 

For  Rev.  Mr.  Aiier's  salary. 


Total $2,080  38 


The  individuals  ahove  named  are  attached  to  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  and  their  contrihutions  have  been 
previously  credited  to  the  church.  Thus  the  contributions 
for  Foreign  Missions  are  shown  to  be  increased  in  1871,  to 
nearly  double  the  average  of  the  live  years  previous.  These 
■figures  tell  their  own  story.  Five  hundred  dollars,  part  of 
the  first  item,  was  contributed  by  II.  II.  Houston,  in  a  check 
drawn  to  the  order  of  Charles  Spencer  and  by  him  endorsed. 


The  complainants  give  the  following  additional  figures: 

Objects  of  Colledions,  Average,  of  jive  years  from  18G5 

to  1869,  inclusive.  1871. 

Episcopal  Hospital $288  44  $05  50 

Disabled  Clergy 137  86     50  75 

iCvangelical  Education  Society 280  17     58  95 

20* 


65 


Average  of  four  years,  'Go,  '66,  '68  and  '69. 

Evangelical  Knowledge  Society $143  72  $48  00 

The  contributions  to  the  Episcopal  Hospital  were  as  follows : 

From  Christ  Church  and  Sunday  school $197  68 

'•      Individuals  of  the  congregation,  viz. : 

F.  Mortimer  Lewis * 200  00 

Chas.  Spencer 100  00 

$497  68 


N'early  double  the  average  of  five  years  previous,  and  more 
than  seven  times  the  amount  said  to  have  been  con- 
tributed. 

The  contributions  in  1871  for  disabled  clergy  w^ere: 

From  Christ  Church $50  75 

"      Chas.  Spencer 50  00 


$100  75 


The  contributions  in  1871  to  the  Evang-elical  Edu- 
cation  Society  were : 

Aug.  15th,  Christ  Church,  Germantown $58  95 

Same  day,  though  credited  on  a  different  page,  from 

individuals  of  congregation,  viz. : 

Chas.  Spencer. 100  00 

E.  S.  Spencer 25  00 

C.  Le  Boutillier 20  00 

J.  "W.  Lewis 50  00 

Total $253  96 


The  above  appears  in  the  printed  report  of  W.  C.  Hous- 
ton, Treasurer  of  the  ^t^vangolical  Education  Society,  who  is 

«:  21* 


the  cTiairman  of  the  committee  which  prcparecl  the  state- 
ment. Charles  Spencer  and  J.  AV.  Lewis  are  also  members 
of  the  same  committee.  Is  it  possible  that  they  did  not 
know  that  they  had  made  such  contributions? 

The  contributions  to  the  Evangelical  Knowledge  Society 
in  1871,  were: 

Aug., Christ  Church,  Germantown $48  00 

"      W.C.Houston,  "  50  00 

"      Chas.  Spencer,  "  50  00 


$148  00 


$4.28  more  than  the  "  average  of  four  years,"  instead  of 
$95.72  less,  as  stated  by  complainants.  It  is  strange  that 
intelligent  business  men  could  assume  a  disguise  so  thin  as 
this!  If  they  had  kept  their  money  in  their  pockets,  or 
contributed  it  anonymously,  the  proof  of  their  disingenuous- 
ness  would  not  have  been  so  readily  apparent. 

But  the  American  Church  ISIissionary  Society,  generally 
recognized  as  "Evangelical,"  has  been  strangely  overlooked 
by  the  complainants.  As  they  have  not  shown  the  "falling 
off  in  1871,"  under  Dr.  Rumney's  rectorship,  the  figures  are 
here  given. 

Coniributiovs  from  Christ  Clnirch^  Germantown: 

For  year  ending  Oct.  1st,  1870 $223  35 

"  "       1871 473  85 

Increase $ 2") 0  50 


The  authority  for  the  foregoing  corrected  statements  will 
mostly  be  found  in  the  printed  reports  of  the  several  socie- 
ties. 

Other  contributions  were  made  in  1871,  through  the 
Ladies'  Sewing  Society,  the  Womcn'is  Union  Missionary  So. 

23* 


67 

ciety,  kc,  which  show  a  similar  improvement,  hut  which  are 
omitted  in  order  to  make  this  answer  less  voluminous. 
Enough  has  heen  shown  to  fully  disprove  the  statement 
that  "  the  collections  decreased,"  and  that  "  the  missionary 
spirit  died  out  almost  entirely." 

V.  It  may  he  safely  said  that  the  dissatisfaction  with  Dr. 
Eumney,  on  the  part  of  a  small  minority  in  the  congregation, 
has  not  "  resulted  from  his  own  action,"  but  has  been 
fomented  by  a  very  few  individuals,  and  those  individuals 
are  the  very  same  who  stirred  up  controversies  in  Christ 
Church  in  the  "prosperous"  times  of  Mr.  Atkins,  which  are 
now  referred  to  as  so  "  unruffled  "  Quite  a  number  of  dis- 
satisfied persons  then  left  the  church,  and  were  regularly 
transferred  to  St.  Michael's. 

VI.  In  conclusion,  the  complainants  claim  that  they  "  rep- 
resent the  congregation  in  the  fullest  possible  manner  ;"  that 
the  friends  of  the  Rector  have  been  "overwhelmingly  de- 
feated," and,  on  the  strength  of  a  unique  document  which 
certifies  the  result  of  the  vestry  election  of  1872,  in  advance, 
promise  that  they  will  exclude  from  the  next  vestry  all  friends 
of  Dr.  Rumney. 

Let  us  see  how  fully  they  represent  the  '•'•  congi^egation." 

First,  as  to  the  committee  which  prepared  the  state- 
ment. 

The  chairman,  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston,  is  only  a  resident  of 
Germantown  five  months  in  the  year,  and  considers  his  real 
"  church  home"  to  be  the  Church  of  the  Atonement,  Phila- 
delphia. In  1868,  he  was  so  "  ruffled  by  the  waves  of  polem- 
ical discussion  "  in  a  controversy  with  Rev.  Mr.  Atkins,  that 
he  tendered  his  resignation  to  the  vestry,  and  though  it  was 
noc  accepted,  gave  up  his  pew,  and  found  a  safe  haven, 
without  difiiculty,  at  St.  Michael's. 

The  second,  Mr.  Charles  Spencer,  is  not  even  a  confirmed 

23* 


68 

member  of  the  cliurcli,  and  has  therefore  no  moral  right  to 
be  in  the  vestrj'  at  all,  as  the  by-laws  of  the  church  pro- 
vide that  the  vestry  shall  be  lawful  "conmmnicants."  He 
it  is  who  has  been  the  chief  promoter  of  this  unfortunate  and 
groundless  controversy. 

Article  I.,  Section  1,  of  the  by-laws  of  Christ  Church, 
provide  "  that  the  vestry  shall  consist  of  twelve  persons,  who 
shall  be  communicants  of  the  said  church." 

Article  II.,  of  the  charter,  states  expressly  that  this  church 
"  accedes  to,  recognizes,  and  adopts,  the  constitution,  canons, 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,"  &c.,  and  acknowledges  their  authority.  It  further 
provides,  that "  any  member  of  this  church  or  corporation,  who 
shall  disclaim  or  refuse  conformity  to  the  said  authority,  shall 
cease  to  be  a  member  of  this  corporation,  and  shall  not  be 
elected,  or  vote  in  the  election  for  vestrymen,*  or  exercise  any 
office  or  function  in,  concerning  or  connected  with  the  said 
church  or  corporation." 

Part  of  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  is  set  forth  in  "  The  Order  of  Coniirma- 
tion,"  as  printed  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  at 
the  end  of  this  office  is  found  this  rubric : 

"  And  there  shall  none  be  admitted  to  the  holy  communion 
until  such  time  as  he  be  confirmed^  or  be  ready  and  desirous 
to  be  confirmed." 

Kow  Mr.  Spencer  never  was  confirmed,  is  not  ready 
and  desirous  to  be,  and  on  the  contrary  expressly  refused  to 
be.  1^0  laxity  of  practice  can  excuse  a  direct  disregard  of 
this  provision.  Casuistry  may  endeavor  to  explain  it  away, 
but  the  church  has  said,  in  perfectly  intelligible  words,  what 

*  And  yet  certain  worthy  gentlemen  in  Gennantown,  Presbj'terians, 
Baptists,  &c.,  no  doubt  in  honest  ignorance  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  who  have  no  idea  whatever  of  acceding  to  or  recognizing 
the  authority  of  its  doctrines  or  discipline,  who  do  not  attend  its  services, 
but  "  refuse  conformity  to  llie  said  authoritj^"  and  wlio  therefore  "  are  not 
entitled  to  vote  in  the  election  for  vestrymen,"  actually  join  in  certifying 
how  they  will  vote  at  the  next  election,  and  blandly  state  their  "  belief"  as 
to  the  "principles"  upon  which  "  the  church  was  originally  estabhshed  1" 

24* 


69 

her  mind  is  on  this  subject,  and  the  morality  of  the  case  is 
phiin. 

The  remaining  two  members  of  tlie  committee,  Messrs. 
Joseph  W.  Lewis  and  W.  B.  AVhitney,  are  vestrymen  of 
less  than  a  year's  standing,  elected  respectively  by  5  and  8 
majority  in  a  vote  of  47.  One  of  these,  Mr.  Whitney,  at- 
tended St.  Luke's,  Germantown,  less  than  three  years  ago, 
and  said  Mr.  Atkins  was  "too  Low  Church  for  him."  At  St. 
Luke's  he  may  be  reasonably  supposed  to  have  had  some 
practice  in  singing  that  "  new  song  in  a  strange  land,"  from 
which  he  and  his  colleagues  now  so  nervously  "  shrink." 

Yet  this  committee  gravely  say  "  we  and  we  only  repre- 
sent the  principles  of  the  church  from  its  foundation  1" 

As  accuracy  in  figures  does  not  seem  to  be  one  of  the  gifts 
of  the  complainants,  it  is  quite  natural  that  the  vote  at  the 
last  vestry  election  (p.  11)  is  not  correctly  given.  The 
"statement "  reads:  "The  church  voted  30  to  18  to  leave 
out  Messrs.  Shapleigh  and  Crenshaw,  and  to  substitute 
Messrs.  J.  W.  Lewis\and  W.  B,  Whitney."  For  "  church  " 
read  "  pewholders  of  two  years  standing"  (some  of  whom 
were  Presbyterians  and  did  not  attend  the  church),  and  bear 
in  mind  that  Mr.  Whitney  was  not  really  eligible  at  the  time, 
and  received  28  votes,  not  30,  and  Mr.  Lewis  26  votes  not 
30,  while  Mr.  Crenshaw  received  21  votes  and  Mr.  Shapleigh 
20,  instead  of  18  each,  and  the  "overwhelming  majority" 
will  be  found  to  be  somewhat  moderated.  Only  one  of  the 
committee  received  as  high  as  30  votes,  Messrs.  Powers,  Lewis 
and  Mellor,  had  only  26  votes  each,  while  Messrs.  H.  H. 
Houston  (ten  years  a  vestryman),  S.  B.  Kingston  and  J.  A. 
Schaeffer,  who  support  the  Rector,  had  respectively  47  and 
46  votes.  Yet  the  former  contentedly  say,  "  we  and  we  only 
represent  the  principles  of  the  church  from  its  foundation," 

But  the  most  material  point  in  this  branch  of  the  case  to  be 
answered,  is  whether  the  complainants  do  "  represent  the 
congregation  in  the  fullest  possible  manner."  This  may  be 
shown  by  a  comparison  of  two  papers  presented  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  for  signature;  one  asking  Br.  Rum- 

25* 


70 

nev  to  resio-n,  and  the  other  askino-  hnii  to  remain.  These  two 
lists  have  been  carefully  classified  by  one  of  the  church  war- 
dens, so  as  to  show  the  number  of  signers  and  the  members  of 
their  families,  so  that  each  head  of  a  family  may  have  due 
credit  for  those  he  represents.  On  this  basis  those  asking 
Dr.  Rumney  to  resign  w^ould  stand  as  follows : 

Pew-holders  and  their  families, 127 

Members  of  congregation,     .     .     .^  .     .     .     .       46 

173 

Those  asking  him  to  remain  would  stand  as  follows  : 

Pew-holders  and  their  families, 203 

Members  of  congregation, lb 4 


337 


Fully  two-thirds  of  the  congregation  desire  Dr.  Rumney 
to  remain,  and  fully  one-half  of  the  remainder  would  be  per- 
fectly satisfied  to  have  him  do  so.  The  real  malcontents  are 
but  a  small  portion  of  the  congregation,  but  they  have  been 
untiring  in  their  efforts  to  sway  the  minds  of  others.  The 
most  reckless  and  unfounded  statements  have  been  made  in 
orcier  to  get  signatures,  or  the  right  to  attach  them ;  for 
many  of  the  names  of  persons  asking  the  Rector  to  resign 
were  written  by  over-zealous  canvassers.  The  Rector  was 
accused,  without  the  slightest  foundation  in  fact,  of  being 
"  High  Church,"of  misappropriating  the  funds  of  the  church ; 
and  signatures  were  obtained  upon  the  plea  that  the  paper 
was  simply  to  certify  whether  the  signers  were  in  favor  of 
High  Church  or  Low  Church.  The  paper  was  thus  presented 
to  those  who  say  that  they  saw  "  no  writing  at  the  top," 
only  a  list  of  names,  and  that  they  had  no  idea  of  asking 
Dr.  Rumney  to  resign.  Many  afterwards  acknowledged  that 
they  did  not  "know  the  difference  between  High  Church 
and  Low  Church"  and  saw  no  change  in  the  services  from 
the  time  of  Mr.  Atkins.     A  system  of  pressure  was  brought 

2G* 


71 

to  bear  upon  some  of  the  members  of  tbe  congregation, 
especially  by  two  of  the  complainants,*  which  would  have 
been  far  from  creditable  in  a  merely  political  election.  Mr. 
F.  Mortimer  Lewis,  a  member  of  the  congregation,  immedi- 
ately after  the  receipt  of  the  list  of  names,  went  with  the 
liector  to  see  a  number  of  these  so-called  signers.  He  took 
notes  at  the  time  of  the  statements  made  by  each  person 
called  on,  and  these  statements  were  copied,  attested  by  him, 
and  produced  before  the  vestry  on  Sept.  5th,  1871.  They 
fully  show  the  means  resorted  to  in  order  to  gain  signatures, 
and  furnish  a  sad  commentary  on  misapplied  "Evangelical", 
zeal.  These  statements,  just  as  submitted  to  the  vestry, 
will  be  found  printed  in  the  appendix,  together  with  one  or 
two  other  certificates  of  similar  character.  The  names  of 
several  persons  who  had  not  signed  the  request  for  Dr. 
Rumnej^'s  resignation,  were  quoted  in  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Charles  Spencer  (p.  20),  as  "  fully  endorsing  every  word  of  the 
paper."  At  least  one  of  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Edwin  M. 
Lewis,  gave  no  authority  for  such  use  of  his  name,  as  will 
appear  by  the  following  letter  : 

riiiLADELPUiA,  February  13,  1872. 

Rev.  T.  S.  Eumney,  D.  D., 

Dear  Sir  : — A  pamphlet  entitled  '  Statement  of  the  Yestry 
of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,"  &c.,  is  before  me. 

I  desire  to  say  that  the  use  of  my  name  on  pnge  lOf  was 
unauthorized  by  me,  not  only  at  the  time  when  the  letter 
was  written,  but  at  this  present  time. 

As  it  seems  necessary  that  I  should  define  my  views,  I  can 
onl}^  say  that  I  do  not  concur  with  the  majority  of  the 
vestry. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

EDWIN  M.  LEWIS. 

*  See  appendix,  statements  of  Messrs.  Schaeffcr  and  Ployd. 
t  Page  20  of  the  reprinted  edition. 
27* 


72 

It  will  tlius  be  seen  that  a  large  number  of  those  who  are 
quoted  by  the  complainants  as  desiring  the  resignation  of 
Dr.  Rumney,  must  be  deducted  from  their  list. 

It  is  ditificult  to  believe  that  even  all  the  members  of  the 
committee  were  aware  of  the  indefensible  character  of  the 
statement  they  signed,  and  we  would  fain  think  that  their 
names  were  attached  improvidently.  One  of  the  five  ves- 
trymen who  "  endorsed  "  the  statement  of  the  committee  (Mr. 
Clark),  has  admitted  that  he  signed  his  name  without  read- 
ing it.     But 

"  Some  one  bad  blundered." 

The  accounting  warden,  at  least,  Mr.  Spencer,  through 
whose  hands  the  moneys  of  the  church  pass,  should  have 
known  whether  the  financial  statistics  were  or  were  not 
correct.  Strangely  enough,  his  yearly  financial  statements, 
which  are  carefully  preserved  in  the  vestry  minutes  from 
1862  to  1869,  inclusive,  are  as  carefully  omitted  since  1869. 
And  this  is  the  gentleman  who  writes  to  Dr.  Rumney,  "  The 
committee's  only  object  is  the  glory  of  God  in  the  good  of 
the  church." 

As  has  been  already  said,  this  contention  has  been  incited 
by  a  very  few  persons.  The  signers  of  the  "  statement " 
mainly  represent  themselves,  and  have  very  few  real  con- 
stituents. They  now  ask  that  their  eftbrts  shall  be  made 
effectual  by  the  aid  of  this  Board  of  Presbyters.  There  is  a 
beneficent  maxim  of  equity,  "  No  map  shall  be  allowed  to 
take  advantage  of  his  own  wrong."  It  has  an  appropriate- 
ness in  connection  with  this  case,  and  it  may  veil  be  quoted 
here  to  show  that  no  set  of  men  can  stir  up  strife  in  the 
church,  and  then  successfully  point  to  that  strife  as  a  reason 
why  the  innocent  victim  of  it  should  be  punished. 

One  word  here  as  to  the  way  in  which  this  question  of 
dissolution  must  be  considered  by  the  Board  of  Presbyters. 
Judge  Hoffman,  speaking  of  the  thirty-fourth  canon  of  1832, 
which  was  substantially  the  same  as  the  present  canon,  ex- 
cept as  to  the  constitution  of  the  tribunal,  says : 

28* 


73 

"  Acr^in,  what  is  the  clescription  and  extent  of  the  dissen- 
sions which  warrant  an  interference  under  this  canon  ?  No 
strictly  correct  definition  can  he  made.  On  the  one  side, 
however,  they  are  not  to  be  such  as  are  the  proper  subjects  of 
a  presentment,  or  duty  to  the  church  requires  that  proceed- 
ing. On  the  other  side,  they  ought  not  to  be  those  occa- 
sional and  almost  unavoidable  differences  or  bickerings, 
which  will  arise  between  a  pastor  and  portions  of  his  congre- 
gation. The  question  can  only  be  rightly  determined  accord- 
ing to  the  circumstances  of  each  case,  cautious^.y  bearing  in 
mind  the  sound  principle,  that  the  door  should  not  be  too 
readily  opened  for  such  applications,  and  that  such  a  sever- 
ance of  the  relation  is  against  the  -policy  and  loishes  of  the 
church." 

The  complainants  say  in  concluding  their  statement  (p.  32), 
"Our  narrative  is  now  concluded,  and  you  have  the  case 
before  you.  We  have  followed  the  history  of  the  church 
down  to  the  present  time,  in  order  that  you  may  understand 
fully  on  what  grounds  ice  desire  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral 
relation  between  Dr.  Rumney  and  the  parish  of  Christ  Church, 
seeing  that  we  prefer  no  charges  against  Dr.  Rumney,  of  any 
specific  default  as  Rector." 

And  again  (p.  33):  "These  are  the  grounds  on  which  we 
beg  to  rest  our  case  and  to  ask  that  Dr.  Rumney  resign." 

The  "  narrative"  of  the  complainants  has  been  carefully 
reviewed,  and  every  material  point  replied  to.  It  is  submit- 
ted that  it  has  been  amply  shown  in  this  answer  that  the 
grievances  se't  forth  are  totally  unfounded,  and  that  there 
are  no  real  "  grounds  "  for  the  case  to  rest  upon.  The  true 
])Osition  of  the  complainants  is  thus  brieflj'  stated  in  the 
letter  of  Bishop  Stevens  to  Dr.  Rumney  (p.  13) :  "  The  reasons 
which  have  been  given  to  me  by  those  wishing  j'our  removal 
are  not  so  much  based  on  what  you  have  done,  as  on  the  an- 
ticipations of  what  you  may  do.  To  deal,  however,  'with 
inferential  evils,  when  these  inferences  have  but  little,  if  any, 
basis  of  attested  fact,  is  beyond  the  scope  of  civil  or  canon  law." 

29* 


74 

Having  failed  to  coDvince  the  Bisliop  they  now  liope  to  con- 
vince this  Board.  TheconcUision  reached  by  the  Bishop  can- 
not fail  to  be  reached  by  the  Presbyters  composing  this 
tribuuah 

The  modest  Eector  who  has  thus  been  thrust  into  an  un- 
l)leasant  notoriety  by  this  hearing,  is  still  ready  to  extend 
the  hand  of  forgiveness  to  these  complainants.  Though  he 
has  been  deeply  wronged  by  them,  no  harsh  language  towards 
them  has  escaped  his  lips,  and  he,  at  least,  has  never  sug- 
gested that  they  Should  "  go  elsewhere."  The  responsibility 
of  the  foregoing  presentation  of  the  Rector's  case  rests  with 
his  counsel,  and  if  any  of  the  criticisms  upon  these  complain- 
ants be  thought  severe,  it  is  because  the  facts  are  severe. 
This  statement  of  them  now  is  due  to  justice.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  the  unfortunate  publicity  which  may 
doubtless  sooner  or  later  result  from  this  proceeding,  has 
been  the  act  of  the  complainants  themselves.  It  was  not  too 
much  to  ask  that  they  should  at  least  have  refrained  from 
opposition  to  an  irreproachable  Rector,  whom  they,  without 
any  desire  on  his  part,  had  assisted  to  nnanimously  elect  and 
bring  to  Germantown  from  a  peaceful  parish  where  he  had 
lived  and  labored  successfully  for  nearly  fifteen  years,  and 
against  whom  they  now  "  prefer  no  charges  of  any  specific 
default,"  and  who  was  and  is  beloved  and  supported  by  a 
large  majority  of  his  present  congregation.  But  they  have 
chosen  otherwise.  The  Eector  at  least  will  not  shrink  from 
any  investigation  which  may  be  required.  The  question  is 
in  no  sense  a  party  one.  It  is  simply  whether  justice  shall 
be  accorded  by  the  majority  of  an  "  Evangelical"  vestry  to 
one  who  is  in  every  true  and  honest  sense  of  the  word  au 
".Evangelical"  Rector,  and  who  stands  to-day,  to  quote  the 
words  of  his  Bishop,- "  free  froru  all  personal  or  canonical 
reproach,  and  with  an  unimpeached  ministerial  record." 
J.  ANDREWS  HARRIS, 

Clerical  Advocate. 
GEO.  M.  CONARROE, 

Of  Counsel  for  the  Rector. 

February  26, 1872.  g^^ 


75 

Philadelphia,  February  26, 1872. 
The  undersigned  vestrymen,  former  vestrymen  and  mem- 
bers of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  hereby  fully  endorse  the 
statements  in  the^  foregoing  answer,  and  certify  that  the 
facts  as  therein  set  forth  are  true  in  all  cases  where  they 
severally  have  personal  knowledge. 

"We  further  certify  to  our  firm  belief  that  the  interests  of 
the  parish  and  the  interests  of  the  Rector  would  be  materially 
injured  by  a  dissolution  of  the  present  pastoral  connection; 
and  that  the  peace  of  the  church  would  be  more  disturbed 
by  the  removal  of  the  Rector  at  the  present  time  than  by  any 
other  possible  cause. 

H.  II.  IIOUSTOIsT, 
S.  B.  KINGSTOjST, 
JOS.  A.  SCHAEFFER, 

Vestrymen. 

E.  A.  CRENSHAW, 
SAMUEL  K  KILLl!], 
M.  S.  SHAPLEIGII, 
ED.  BEDLOCK, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
JOS.  B.  BARRY, 

C.  BULLOCK. 


Tlie  Rev.  J.  Andrews  Harris  then  read  the  letter  of  Bcek- 
man  Potter,  the  statements  of  Joseph  A.  Schaeffer  and 
N.  K.  Ployd,  the  statements  of  persons  whose  names  were 
said  to  be  attached  to  a  paper  asking  Dr.  Rumney  to  resign, 
Mr.  W.  C.  Houston's  letter,  and  sundry  statistics  of  the 
Sunday  School,  &c.,  as  printed  in  the  appendix  to  the  answer. 
This  appendix  was  as  follows: 


76 


a  A    " 


APPEITDIX  "A 

Letter  froit  the  Originator  of  Christ  Church,  German- 
town, 

Philadelphia,  February  21, 1872. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — I  have  read  the  paper  book  entitled  a 
"Statement  of  the  Yestry  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown, 
regarding  their  controversy  with  the  Rector,"  dated  Febru- 
ary, 1872,  claiming  to  have  some  knowledge  of  the  "organi- 
zation of  Christ  Church,"  Germantown.  I  propose  reviewing 
a  portion  of  this  "statement  "  and  "narrative,"  believing  by 
the  time  my  review  is  finished,  that  the  present  "  vestry," 
its  "  committee,"  and  a  majority  of  those  who  sign  them- 
Belves  as  "  incorporators  and  members  of  the  vestrj'  at  the 
organization  of  the  parish  known  as  Christ  Church,  German- 
town,"  will  admit  that  they  never  have  been  "  familiar  with 
the  causes  which  induced  that  organization." 

The  "  committee  of  the  vestry  "  declare  in  their  "  state- 
ment," "  First : — That  they  desire  to  call  attention  to  the 
"  following  narrative  of  the  foundation  of  the  church,  pre- 
"  pared  by  one  of  the  corporators,  and  acquiesced  in  by  the 
"  surviving  members  of  the  original  corporation,  as  witness 
"  their  signatures."  I  most  sincerely  regret,  if  I  am  informed 
correctly  as  to  the  author  of  this  "  narrative,"  that  the  gen- 
tleman in  question  did  not  have  the  manliness  (when  called 
upon  for  such  a  purpose)  to  at  once  acknowledge  his  entire 
ignorance  of  the  whole  subject.  For  I  here  assert  (if  my 
memor}'^  serves  me  rightly),  and  call  upon  him  to  substantiate 
me  u[/on  the  witness  stand :  First,  That  he  never  at- 
tended a  meeting  of  the  vestry  ,  Second,  That  he  was  not  a 
resident  of  Germantown  at  the  time ;  Third,  That  his  name 
was  used  only  for  the  purpose  of  organization  and  obtaining 

a  charter;  Fourth,  That  he  has  never  contributed  towards 

35* 


77 

the  erection  or  support  of  the  church,  and  lastly,  That  he 
has  never  been  inside  the  church  before  or  since  his  removal 
to  Germautown  six  times,  if  as  often.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
very  difficult  to  judge  ©f  the  character  and  accuracy  of  this 
"narrative"  when  coming  from  such  a  source. 

In  this  remarkable  "  narrative"  it  is  declared,  that  "  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  was  originated  by  Mr.  P.  E.  Hamm, 
long  a  member  and  Warden  of  Grace  Church,  Philadelphia,"' 
&c.  Having  already  alluded  to  the  ignorance  of  this  narra- 
tor, it  may  possibly  be  of  advantage  (after  a  lapse  of  tAventy 
years)  to  record  the  yet  unknown  and  unwritten  history 
of  the  "  organization  of  this  parish." 

Early  in  the  year  1852,  having  perfected  business  arrange- 
ments which  required  my  permanent  residence  in  German- 
town,  I  called  upon  the  late  bishop  of  the  diocese,  and 
announced  my  intended  removal  thither,  and  my  intention 
of  starting  another  Episcopal  Church  in  the  borough,  which 
received  his  cordial  approvaL  Immediately  after  settliifg  in 
ra}'' new  "church  home  "with  this  object  in  view,  I  con- 
sulted with  Messrs.  John  B.  Champion  and  Charles  L. 
Scott,  then  residing  in  Germantown,  who  willingly  joined 
me  in  this  new  work  of  labor  and  love.  After  an  intorchang-e 
of  views  and  a  survey  of  localities,  it  was  decided  that  the 
Menonist  meeting-house,  situate  on  the  Main  street,  above 
what  is  now  called  Herman  street,  would  answer  our  pur- 
poses, if  attainable.  In  company  with  lSh\  C,  I  called  upon 
Mr.  John  Kittenhouse,  Senior,  who  was  then  the  leading 
member  and  trustee  of  that  corporation,  and  notified  him  of 
our  object  and  desire  to  rent  their  building  for  the  purpose 
of  having  services  therein,  and  establishing  a  new  Episcopal 
Church.  (Their  own  congregation  having  dwindled  down  to 
but  few  in  numbers,  and  holding  their  services  but  once  a 
month,  in  the  morning.)  Mr.  R.  listened  attentively  to  the 
appeal,  and  promised  to  place  the  subject  before  his  people  at 
their  next  meeting.  He  did  so,  and  at  our  next  interview 
with  him,  he  kindly  granted  me  the  use  of  tlu-ir  building 
without  charge  ;  the  only  proviso  being  that  I  would  eniploy 

36* 


78 

tlicir  sexton,  and  deliver  up  to  them  uninjured,  their  church, 
whenever  demanded.  (This  building  was  so  occupied  until 
the  congregation  of  Christ  Church  removed  to  their  present 
location.)  Thankful  for  the  kindness  so  liberally  extended 
us  by  entire  strangers,  I  immediately,  in  connection  with  the 
gentlemen  named,  commenced  proceedings  for  the  opening 
of  a  Sunday  school.  And  after  posting  bills  throughout  the 
neighborhood  and  borough,  announcing  that  a  Sunday  school 
would  be  opened  in  said  building  upon  the  following 
Sunday,  in  accordance  with  the  rites  and  forms  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  awaited  the  coming  event  with  peculiar 
interest.  In  the  interim,  having  heard  that  a  lady  resided  in 
Germantown  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  church  in 
Philadelphia  with  which  I  was  previously  connected,  I 
sou!2;ht  her,  announced  my  intention,  solicited  her  assistance, 
which  was  promised  and  faithfully  given.  The  eventful 
Sunday  arrived,  and  with  it  the  opening  of  the  school;  there 
being  present  six  teachers  and  seventeen  scholars.  Thus 
"  originated  Christ  Church,  Germantown."  From  week  to 
week  the  school  largely  increased  in  numbers  as  to  both 
teachers  and  scholars.  I  then  determined,  with  the  help  of 
my  co-workers,  to  inaugurate  the  church  services  upon  every 
Sunday  evening  and  without  money  and  without  friends, 
apparently,  but  relying  upon  the  promises  of  the  Master,  that 
"  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  His  name,  "  He 
would  be  in  their  midst,"  announced  and  published  that  Epis- 
copal services  would  be  held  regularly  in  the  church  upon 
every  Sunday  evening.  This  programme  was  carried  out, "  not 
occasionally,"  as  this  narrator  declares,  but  without  intermis- 
sion for  nine  months,  when  the  services  were  changed  to 
mornino"  and  evening.  In  the  meantime  it  became  necessary 
to  organize  a  "vestry"  and  obtain  a  charter.  This  was 
a  difficult  task  to  accomplish,  in  consequence  of  the 
scarcity  of  Episcopalians  not  connected  with  St.  Luke's 
Church,  and  it  was  owing  to  this  difficulty,  and  at  the  re- 
quest of  those  deeply  interested  in  the  work,  that  some  of 
these  gentlemen  now  signing  the  "  narrative "  (and  non- 
07* 


79 

residents  of  Germantown)  permitterl  their  names  to  be  used 
for  the  purpose  of  making  np  the  vestry  and  obtaining  a 
charter.  That  instrument  I  believe  to  be  in  my  hand- 
writing ;  and  in  it  these  gentlemen  declare,  over  their  own 
signatures,  that  "  This  church  acknowledges  itself  to  be  a 
member  of,  and  to  belong  to,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  in  the  United  States  of 
America."  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  in  this  church  there  has 
been  any  deviation  therefrom. 

ilr.  P.  E.  Hamm,  spoken  of  in  the  "narrative"  as  the 
originator  of  the  church,  was  at  the  time  a  member  and  pew- 
liolder  of  Saint  Luke's  Parish,  and  when  called  upon  and 
informed  of  the  progress  and  apparent  success  of  the  enter- 
prise, identified  himself  with  the  movement.  Subsequently, 
one  or  two  others  of  these  "  narrative"  signers  removed  to 
Germantown,  one  connecting  himself  with  Christ  Church 
for  a  time  as  member  and  vestryman,  and,  afterwards 
leaving,  organized  and  carried  to  successful  completion  Cal- 
vary Church,  Germantown  ;  but  not  so  with  this  "  corpo- 
rator and  historian,  who,  overflowing  with  "knowledge  as 
regards  the  "  organization  of  Christ  Church,"  Germantown, 
and  devoted  with  love  and  zeal  to  what  is  called  the  "  Low 
Church  party."  Upon  his  removal  to  Germantown  in  these 
latter  j'ears  he  first  connected  himself  with  Calvary  Church 
as  aforesaid,  and  is  now,  if  I  am  not  misinformed,  a  member 
of  the  Church  of  Saint  John  the  Baptist. 

The  "  narrative"  further  declares  that  "  Mr.  Hamm  went 
"to  work  contributing  Hberally  of  his  means  and  ob- 
"  taining  liberal  subscriptions  to  the  new  parisli."  Without 
reflecting  in  the  least  upon  "  Mr.  Hamm,"  it  will  not  be  im- 
proper to  say  that  he  did  no  more  than  any  other  active 
member  of  the  vestry  at  the  time^  each  contributing  either 
by  labor  or  money  to  the  good  work.  The  lot  of  ground 
upon  which  the  church  now  stands,  the  stones  which  form  its 
foundations,  as  well  as  those  which  line  its  inner  walls,  were 
the  noble  gift  of  Mr.  Fallon,  obtained  through  the  personal 
influence  and  instrumentality   of  the  writer.    And  it  may 

38* 


80 

with  trutli  and  justice  be  added,  that  but  for  this  most  gen- 
erous donation,  years  would  liave  elapsed  before  a  building 
known  as  Christ  Church  coald  have  been  erected  in  German- 
town  ;  for  the  "  Hberal  contributions"  received  up  to  that 
period  did  not  justify  the  undertaking. 

It  is  also  stated  by  the  "committee"  in  their  "statement'' 
that  this  "  narrative  of  the  foundation  of  the  churcli"  is 
"  acquiesced  in  by  the  surviving  members  of  the  original 
"  corporation  ;  .as  witness  their  signatures."  As  the  origi- 
nator of  the  church,  as  its  first  Sunday  School  Superinten- 
dent for  three  years,  as  one  of  its  "  incorporators,"  as  a 
member  of  its  "  original  vestry,"  as  a  member  of  the  church 
for  nineteen  years,  and  finally  as  one  of  the  "  surviving 
members  of  the  original  corporation,"  I  cannot  but  proclaim 
this  assertion  to  be  without  foundation  in  fact,  and  none 
know  better  than  the  "  committee"  who  put  forth  this 
paper  book,  that  at  least  one  other  of  the  "  incorporators 
and  surviving  members  of  the  original  corporation"  is  6UII 
living  and  in  Germantown,  and  has,  if  my  information  be 
correct,  refused  to  sign  this  very  narrative. 

If  these  things  be  so,  I  ask  what  reliance  can  be  placed 
upon  the  remaining  portions  of  this  "  Statement  of  the  ves- 
try of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  regarding  their  contro- 
versy with  their  Rector." 

Very  truly  yours, 

BEEKMAK  POTTER. 

Mr.  H.  n.  Houston, 

Hector's  Warden,  Christ  Church,  Germantown. 
3a* 


81 


APPENDIX   "B." 

Statement  of  Jos.  A.  Sciiaeffer,  a  Member  of  the 
Present  Vestry. 

A  few  days  after  the  Easter  election  in  1871,  Mr.  Spencer 
sent  for  me  on  a  plea  of  business,  and  taking  me  into  a 
private  office,  he  made  allusion  to  .several  glasses,  broken  in 
liis  factory,  but  almost  immediately  directed  the  conversa- 
tion to  church  matters,  having  much  to  say  reflecting  uj^on 
the  present  Rector,  and  his  connection  with  the  church.  He 
said  to  me,  "  I  have  a  jpa'per  requesting  Dr.  Rumney  to  resign 
his  position  as  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  nine  of  the  present 
vestrymen  have  already  signed  the  paper,  and  I  want  you  to 
make  the  tenths  I  then  replied  that  Mr.  Clark,  one  of  the 
7ime,  in  a  recent  conversation  with  me,  said  that  he  would 
not  sign  a  paper  requesting  Dr.  Eumirey's  resignation.  Mr. 
Spencer  then  said,  "  Mr.  Clark  is  a  changed  man,  and  is  now 
with  us  and  has  signed  the  paper.'" 

In  contrast  to  this  statement  of  Mr.  Spencer,  I  will  here 
say,  that  within  two  or  three  days  after,  I  asked  Mr.  Clark 
in  regard  to  it.  He  stated  positively  that  he  had  not  and 
ivould  not  sign  against  Dr.  Rumney.  I  will  also  add,  I  after- 
wards met  Mr.  A,  Miskey,also  one  of  the  nine,  and  told  him 
that  Mr.  Spencer  had  informed  me  that  he  had  signed  a 
l)aper  which  he  (Mr.  Spencer)  had  at  the  time,  requesting 
Dr.  Rumney  to  resign.  He  denied  it,  saying:  '■^  I  have  not 
signed  sucha  pfciper,  and  would  not  raise  a  finger  against  Dr. 
Rumney." 

To  return  to  my  conversation  with  ^Ir.  Spencer,  ^fr. 
Spencer  continued  to  bring  forward  inducements  to  persuade 
me,  if  possible,  to  sign  the  paper,  among  which  was  one, 
which  he  stated  he  hfid  presented  to  a  friend  of  mine,  to 
secure  his  vote  at  the  recent  election  for  vcstrj-iuen,  which 
Q  40* 


82 

was,  that  if  he  would  vote  the  ticket  presented  by  him  (Mr. 
Spencer)  any  loss  which  might  follow  from  the  withdrawal  of 
the  influence  of  the  gentlemen  sustaining  Dr.  Rumney,  should 
be  made  up  to  him  four-fold,  by  him  (Mr.  Spencer). 

This  I  considered  as  a  bait  to  secure  my  signature  to  the 
paper,  which  he  said  he  had,  and  which  was  signed  by  the 
nine  vestrymen,  but  which  he  did  not  allow  me  to  see.  Thus 
continuing  to  urge  me  to  sign  till  the  time  came  for  him  to 
go  to  the  city,  he  took  out  his  watch,  and  starting  hastily, 
he  turned  to  me  with  the  demand,  "  Will  you  or  will  you  not 
sign  that  paper  f  I  replied  that  I  would  not.  He  then 
said  "  You  will  be  sorry  for  it."  We  then  separated.  Before 
that  time  I  had  received  his  patronage — since  then  I  have 
not  received  one  order  from  him. 

JOSEPH  A.  SCHAEFFER, 

Germantown,  February  19,  1872. 


APPENDIX  "C."  .      ■ 

Statement  of  N.  K.  Ployd. 

I  am  a  member  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown.  Was 
baptized  and  confirmed  by  Rev.  Mr.  Atkins.  Previous  to 
the  last  election  of  vestry  I  was  called  on  by  Messrs.  C. 
Spencer  and  Miskey  to  vote  for  a  ticket  with  the  names  of 
Mr.  Shapleigh  and  Mr.  Crenshaw  left  off".  I  told  them  that 
it  would  be  a  sacrifice  of  principle  to  vote  against  Dr. 
Rumney,  as  wehad  nothing  against  him.  They  both  assured 
me  that  it  was  not  a  war  against  Dr.  Rumney,  but  against 
High  Church  principles,  and  if  their  ticket  was  elected  they 
would  not  interfere  with  Dr.  Eumncy.  They  pressed  their 
grievances  so  hard,  and  it  seemed  so  plausible,  that  I  told 
them  that  if  they  were  correct  in  their  assertions  I  would 
not  be  bound  to  Dr.  Rumney.  I  met  Mr.  H.  H.  Houston, 
who  was  my  sponsor  in  baptism  ;  he  had  been  recommended 

41* 


83 

for  my  sponsor  by  Rev.  Mr.  Atkins  (formerly  rector)  as  his 
best  supporter,  and  as  a  Christian  gentleman.  Mr.  Houston 
stated  the  whole  difficulty,  which  only  confirmed  my  own 
opinion  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  right.  I  have  endeavored  to 
sustain  him  to  the  best  of  my  feeble  ability,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  do  so  until  I  find  that  I  am  in  error. 

I  have  been  by  occupation  a  painter ;  was  employed  last 
summer  by  a  painter  to  assist  on  Mr.  Charles  Le  Boutillier's 
house.  As  soon  as  I  arrived  Mr.  Le  B.  made  his  appear- 
ance and  said  he  wanted  to  ask  a  few  questions.  He  then 
commenced,  was  I  High  or  Low  ?  I  told  him  I  was  classed 
as  Low;  but  that  I  considered  mj^self  an  Episcopalian.  He 
then  demanded  to  know  if  I  signed  Dr.  Rumney's  paper?  I 
said  I  did.  He  then  gave  me  an  invitation  to  leave  his 
place.  He  seemed  very  violent  at  first  at  all  who  did  not 
agree  with  him.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  any  credit  to 
any  cause  to  repeat  the  language  used.  Mr.  Le  B.  cooled 
dowm  and  assured  me  that  if  I  would  take  my  name  off  Dr. 
Rumney's  paper  and  sign  one  against  him,  he  would  let  me 
go  to  work  on  his  house.  This  mild  proposition  I  most  em- 
phatically refused,  and  left  the  premises. 

I  have  had  frequent  interviews  with  Dr.  Rumney.  I  find 
him  an  honest  Christian  gentleman.  His  object  is  to  do 
good  for  Christ  and  man.  I  therefore  repeat  that  he  has  my 
support  and  confidence. 

N.  K  RLGYD. 
February  n^'iSn. 

42* 


84 


APPENDIX  "D." 

Statements  of  persons  whose  names  are  appenrle'l  to  the 
paper  asking  Dr.  Rumney  to  resign,  who  never  authorized 
THEIR  NAMES  to  be  used  for  such  purpose.* 

Mr.  Jordan,  Main  and  Church  Streets. 

Miss  ,  called  on  me  and  said  the  paper  was  to 

decide  whether  the  church  be  High  or  Low  Church.  I  have 
nothing  against  you  (Dr.  Rumney),  and  did  not  know  that  the 
paper  requested  you  to  resign.  I  did  not  read  the  paper.  I 
do  not  wish  you  to  leave  the  church.  I  only  desire  the  church 
be  not  made  a  High  Church.  My  wife  would  not  sign  the 
paper.  I  am  not  a  member  of  your  church.  I  attend  the 
Lutheran  Church. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
Septembei"  5,  187L 


Mrs.  Greenrod. 

Miss  called  to  see  me  and  had  a  paper.    Said  it 

was  to  decide  whether  we  be  Ilio-h  or  Low  Church,  I  said 
what  was  the  difference?  She  said  that  I  bould  not  under- 
stand, not  being  educated,  but  that  there  was,  and  it  was  to 
decide  that  she  wanted  my  name.  I  said  that  she  knew  best, 
and  I  would  leave  it  to  her  to  settle.  I  afterwards  called  on 
Miss  ,  and  ordered  her  to  take  my  name  off  the 

paper,  as  I  did  not  see  any  change  in  the  church  ;  but  she 
said  it  was  too  late.      I  am  very  sorry  that  my  name  was 

*  Note. — The  names  of  the  ladies  who  called  on  these  persons  are 
omitted  at  the  request  of  Dr.  Rumney,  in  order  to  shield  them  from 
unpleasant  notoriet\\     The\"  can  be  furnished  to  the  court  if  required, 

43* 


85 

put  on  the  paper.     I  like  you  (Dr.   Rumney),  and  do  not 
wish  you  to  leave  the  church.     I  have  before  asked  you  to 
take  my  name  off  the  paper  if  you  should  receive  it. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 

T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  5, 1871. 


Mrs.  E.  Smith,  Centre  Street. 

I  never  signed  a  paper  asking  you  (Dr.  Rumney)to  resign  ; 
nor  would  I  do  so,  as  I  do  not  wish  you  to  leave  us.     I  did 
not  sign  any  paper  nor  tell  any  person  to  sign  for  me. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 

T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  5,  1871. 


Miss  M.  A.  Keenan,  Main  Street. 

I  do  not  belong  to  Christ  Church.  I  attend  the  church  at 
Mt,  Airy.  Iwas  asked  to  go  to  a  meeting  at  Miss 
one  evening.  It  was  there  stated  that  we  must  decide 
whether  Christ  Church  be  a  High  or  Low  Church ;  that  a 
paper  was  in  circulation  by  the  High  Church  party,  and  we 
must  try  to  keep  Christ  Church  a  Low  Church.  The  paper 
that  was  afterwards  used  was  not  at  this  meeting.  I  have 
nothing  against  you  (Dr.  Rumney),  only  don't  want  a  High 
Church,  I  would  not  have  gone  to  the  meeting  if  I  had 
known  what  it  was  for. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMXEY. 
September  5,  1871. 

44* 


86 

Mrs.  Keenan,  Main  Street. 

I  Avas  at  the  meeting  at  Miss  ,  and  did  not  liear 

anything  about  asking  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  to  resign,  only 
that  we  must  decide  between  High  and  Low  Church.  I 
liked  the  church  as  it  was  under  Mr.  Atkins.  On  return- 
ing to  Germantown  after  an  absence  of  some  years,  I  see 
more  change  in  the  people  than  I  do  in  the  Rector.  I  am 
sorry  that  I  went  to  the  meeting.  I  was  told  at  the  meet- 
ing that  all  the  money  of  the  church  was  now  going  to  the 
High  Church  party. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMXEY. 
September  5,  1871. 


Mrs.  Bronson,  Haines  Street. 

I  never  signed  a  paper  asking  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  to  resign. 
I  signed  a  paper  at  the  house  of  Miss  ,  which  had 

no  writing  on  it,  except  some  names,  which  was  only  to  have 
a  Low  Church,  l^othing  was  said  about  your  resigning.  I 
would  not  sign  such  a  paper,  as  I  do  not  wish  you  to  leave 
us.  All  I  wanted  was  not  a  High  Church.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  difference  is  between  High  and  Low  Church.  •  I 
see  no  diiference  in  the  church  services  from  the  time  when 
Mr.  Atkins  was  here ;  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the 
services  as  now  conducted  by  you  (Dr.  Rumney),  and  wish 
no  cl'iange. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUiMNEY. 
September  5,1871. 

Mrs.  Fredman,  Haines  Street. 

I  did  not  sign  the  paper.     Miss  said  it  was  my 

duty  to  sign  it,  and  said  something  would  hurt  my  children. 

It  was  something  in  the  communion.     I  do  not  know  what 

45* 


87 

she  meant.  She  put  my  name  clown.  I  never  said  that  I 
signed  the  first  paper  without  re*^eetion.     Miss  came 

a  number  of  times  for  me  to  sign,  and  worried  me  so,  that 
to  get  rid  of  her  I  said  she  could  put  my  name  down.  She 
talked  about  High  Church  and  said  they  all  loved  Dr.  Rum- 
ney.  I  did  not  wish  you  to  resign,  and  do  not  now  wish 
you  to  leave  us.  I  have  been  much  worried  about  the 
use  of  my  name.  I  do  not  wish  you  to  go  away.  I  see  no 
diflerence  in  the  church  services  now  and  I  do  not  know 
what  the  trouble  is  about. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 


T.  S.  RUMXEY. 


September  5,  1871. 


Mrs.  Palmer,  Morton  Street. 

I    attended  a   meeting   at   Miss  and  heard  them 

talk  about  High  and  Low  Church.     I  signed  merely  to  keep 
our's  a  Low  Church.     I  do  hot  recollect  hearing  anything 
said  about  your  (Dr.  Rumney)  resigning.     I  see  no  ditl'erence 
in  the  services  now.     I  did  not  sign  for  you  to  resign. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 

T.  s.  rum:n'ey. 

September  5,  1871. 


JOHN  Palmer. 

I  heard  it  stated  that  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  appropriated  the 

funds  of  the  church  for  High  Church  purposes,  and  I  signed 

only  for  a  Low  Church.     I  do  not  remember  that  anything 

was  said  about  yowY  going  away.     I  see  no  dittercnce  in  the 

services  in  the  church  now  from  formerly.     I  did  not  think  it 

right  that  the  church  funds  should  be  appropriated  to  wrong 

4G* 


88 

purposes,  and  that  made  me  sign ;  and  I  confess  that  I  was 
prejudiced  against  you  on  that  account. 
1  Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  JS.  KUMxN'EY. 
September  5,  1871. 


Mrs.  Goodman,  Centre  Street. 

I  only  signed  a  pape/  against  a  High  Church,  and  did  not 
hear  anything  about  your  (Dr.  Rumney)  going  away,  and  I 
am  very  sorry  now  that  I  was  induced  to  sign  ;  I  only 
signed  against  a  High  Church.  I  see  no  change  now  in  the 
services  in  the  church  from  formerly.  I  do  not  wish  you 
(Dr.  Rumney)  to  leave  us.  I  did  not  read  the  paper.  I 
only  saw  a  few  names  on  it ;  no  other  reading  was  on  it  that 
I  know  of. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  5,  1871. 


Mrs.  S.  A.  GuRLiNa,  Centre  Street. 

I  never  signed  a  paper  requesting  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  to 

resign.     A  paper  was  shown  to  me  by  two  ladies,  and  I  was 

asked  to  sign  to  keep  the  church  from  being  a  High  Church. 

I  said  I  did  not  understand  the  matter,  and  they  did  not  tell 

me.     I   only   saw  a  few   names    on    the   paper,  which  was 

folded,  and  thought  it  was  only  against  High  Church.     I 

have  no  fault  with  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  and  do  not  wish  you 

to  leave  us.     The  ladies  were  Miss  and  Miss 

Stated  in  our  presence. 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 

T.  S.  RUMNEY. 

September  5,  1871. 

47* 


89 

Mrs.  AxFORD. 

Miss  called  here  and  asked  me  if  I  did  not  wish 

to  have  a  Low  Church.  I  was  very  busy  at  the  time  and 
said  that  I  did ;  only  that  I  had  nothing  against  Dr.  Runi- 
iiey,  and  did  not  wish  him  to  leave ;  hut  that  they  might 
sign  my  name  if  they  pleased  for  a  Low  Church.  I  do  not 
know  the  difference  between  High  and  Low  Church. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  5,  1871. 

Miss  M.  Elkins,  Chelton  Avenue. 

Miss  called  and  talked  about  High  Church  and  per- 

suaded me  to  sign  a  paper.  Nothing  was  said  about  you 
(Dr.  Rumney)  resigning.  I  am  very  sorry  that  I  signed  the 
paper,  but  was  over-persuaded  and  hardly  knew  what  I  did. 
I  said  that  Dr.  Rumney  kept  close  to  the  Prayer  Book,  and 
that  I  did  not  wish  him  to  leave.  I  regret  that  I  was  in- 
duced to  sign,  and  would  be  glad  to  have  my  name  taken  off 
the  paper.  I  certainly  wish  you  to  remain  here. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMi>rEY. 
September  5,  1871. 

Robert  Cupitt,  Engle  Street. 

I  am  very  sorry  that  I  signed  the  paper  for  ^liss 
She  talked  about  Low  Church,  and  I  signed  only  to  keep  a 
Low  Church.  lN"othing  was  said  about  you  (Dr.  Rumney) 
resigning,  or  I  would  not  have  signed,  as  I  do  not  wish  you 
to  go  away  ;  only  I  wish  to  have  a  Low  Church.  I  regret 
that  I  signed  the  last  paper,  and  never  stated  that  I  signed 
the  Urst  paper  without  reflection. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  5, 1871. 

48* 


90 

Mrs.  E.  CupiTT. 

I  did  not  hear  anything  about  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  leaving 
the  church.     The  talk  with  Miss  and  Miss 

was  about  Low  Church,  which  is  what  I  hke.  I  did  not 
sign  for  you  (Dr.  Rumney)  to  leave  us,  and  I  do  not  wish 
you  to  go  away. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  'MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUAmEr. 
September  5,  187L 

Mrs.  Brandreth,  Engle  Street. 

Miss  called  and  asked  me  to  sign  a  paper  to  keep 

our  church  from  being  a  High  Church,  which  I  refused  to 
sign.  She  made  me  promise  to  call  at  her  house  in  the  after- 
noon. "When  I  was  there  she  brought  out  the  paper  and  I 
signed  it,  only  because  I  do  not  want  our  church  like  the 
Roman  Catholic.  I  see  no  difference  now  from  when  ]\Ir. 
Atkins  was  here.     Miss  said  that  you  (Dr.  Runmey) 

intended  to  make  it  a  High  Church. 

1  told  Mr.  Cupitt  that  I  was  sorry  that  I  signed  the  paper, 
a,nd  would  like  to  have  my  name  taken  off.     I  do  not  wish 
you  to  leave  us.     1  hope  you  will  stay  with  us. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEAVIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 

September  5,  1871. 

Mrs.  Twist. 

I  signed  the  paper,  as  I  washed  the  church  kept  on  Mr. 
Atkins'  platform.  I  have  nothing  against  you  (Dr.  Rum- 
ney), and  only  signed  to  keep  our  church  a  Low  Church.  I 
cannot  say  that  I  see  any  difference  in  the  church  services, 
but  there  is  a  difference  in  the  prayer  meeting. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  5,  1871. 


91 

Mr.  Twist. 

I  was  not  at  home  when  the  paper  was  brouglit  here,  and 
I  did  not  sign  it.    I  have  nothing  against  you  (Dr.  Rumney.) 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 


September  5,  1871. 


T.  S.  RU:MXEy. 


Mrs.  Ann  Steer e. 

When  the  ladies,  Miss  and  Miss 

called  here,  they  said  that  Dr.  Rumney  "was  going  to  make 
Christ  Church  a  High  Church,  and  they  wanted  our  names 
for  a  Low  Church,  is'othing  was  said  about  Dr.  Rumney 
going  away.  I  told  them  to  put  down  my  name,  my  hus- 
band's, and  my  daughter  Lizzie's  for  a  Low  Church.  My 
husband  does  not  go  to  church,  except  sometimes  with  me  at 
night.  He  is  not  a  member.  My  daughter  signed  at  Mrs. 
also  for  a  Low  Church.  We  have  notMns;  ao-ainst 
you  (Dr.  Rumney),  and  wish  you  to  stay.  I  do  not  know 
the  dilference  between  High  and  Low  Church. 
Stated  in  our  presence, 

E.  MORTIMER  LEWIS. 
T.  S.  RUMKEY. 

September  5,  1871 

Mrs.  Sykes,  Bowman  Street. 

A  pciper  was  brought  to  me  to  sign,  and  I  was  told  that  it 
was  only  to  have  the  church  the  same  as  when  Mr.  Atkins 
was  there,  and  nothing  else.  Since,  I  have  been  told  that 
the  paper  was  to  ask  you  to  leave ;  and  I  have  said  that  I  was 
very  sorry  that  I  signed  it.  I  only  signed  to  have  the  church 
as  it  was.  I  do  not  wish  you  to  resign  at  all.  I  am  very  sorry 
that  I  signed. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTi:\rER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMXEY. 

September  5, 1871. 

50* 


92 

Miss  McNaughton,  Washington  Lane. 

I  was  told  that  papers  were  being  taken  around  among 
the  people,  one  for  High  Curch,  and  one  for  Low  Church,  and 
I  was  asked  which  I  would  sign.  I  said  I  would  sign  for  Low 
Church.  I  never  thought  of  such  a  thing  as  asking  you  (Dr. 
liumnej)  to  leave.  I  thought  that  you  might  change  your 
views  to  that  of  the  Low  Church  when  you  saw  the  paper.  If 
you  coukl  not,  that  you  might  probably  leave  us.  I  did  not 
sign  to  ask  you  to  resign,  only  for  Low  Church ;  and  had  I 
known  all  that  I  now  know,  I  would  not  have  signed  the 
paper. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUM^'EY. 

September  5, 187L 

Henry  Freas,  Main  Street. 

The  paper  which  I  signed  was  only  for  a  Low  Church. 
Kothing  was  said  to  me  about  my  signing  to  ask  you  (Dr. 
Rumney)  to  resign.  I  did  not  read  the  paper,  but  from  what 
was  said  to  me,  I  was  under  the  impression  that  the  paper 
was  only  to  keep  the  church  a  Low  Church,  and  to  have  no 
change  brought  in.     I  also  signed  for  my  wife"  for  the  same 

reason. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  8, 1871. 

Daniel  P.  Freas,  Main  Street. 

I  was  busy  when  the  paper  was  brought  to  the  store,  and 
read  it  over  hastily.  I  do  not  remember  that  it  said  any- 
thing about  your  (Dr.  Rumney)  resigning ;  all  that  I  sup- 
posed it  was,  was  a  desire  to  keep  the  church  as  a  Low 

Church. 

Stated  in  our  presence, 

-    F.  MORTIMER  LEWIS, 
T.  S.  RUMNEY. 
September  8,  1871. 


93 


APPENDIX  "E." 


List  of  clergymen  who  have   preached   or   oiEciated   in 
Christ  Church  under  Dr.  Rumney. 


Rev.  Dr.  Williamson,  Wilkesbarre. 
Rev.  T.  "W".  Martin,  Lewistown. 
Rev.  Dr.  Fitch  (uncle  of  Mr.  Whit- 
ney of  the  Committee). 
Rev.  Dr.  Hay,  Radnor. 
Rev.  J.  Houston  Eccleston. 
Rev.  R.  C.  Matlack. 
Rev.  Juo.  G.  Furey. 
Rev.  Dr.  Childs. 
Rev.  A.  Shiras,  D.  D. 
Rev.  Mr.  Page,  of  Tenn. 
Rev.  J.  N.  Stanger. 
Rev.  A.  B.  Atkins  (twice). 
Rev.  Dr.  Benj.  Watson. 
Rev.  Dr.  Hawkins,  Chambersb'g. 
Rev.  Dr.  Spalding,  Wisconsin. 
Rev.  J.  K.  Murphy,  Germantown. 
Rev.  A.  Wadleigli,  Germantown. 
Rev.  G.  L.  Bishop,  Germantown. 
Rev.  Dr.  Oliver. 
Rev.  S.  D.  Hinraan. 


Rev.  Dr.  Sniedcs,  North  Carolina. 
Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin. 
Rev.  R.  T.  Roach,  D.  D. 
Rev.  A.  T.  Twing,  D.  D. 
Rev.  Mr.  Cathell. 
Rev.  Sam'l  Durborrow. 
Rev.  W.  H.  Hare. 
Rev.  Mr.  Cullen. 
Rev.  Mr.  Diehl, 
Rev.  T.  A.  Jaggar. 
Rev.  J.  DeW.  Perry, 
Rev.  Dr.  Yarnall. 

Rev.  F.  B.  Van  Kleeck,  White  Plains. 
Rev.  Mr.  Davidson. 
Bishop  Randall. 
Bishop  ]\Iorris. 
Bishop  Tuttle. 
Bishop  Clarkson. 

Bishops  Johns  and  Bedell  have  been 
both  invited,  and  could  not  come. 

52* 


9i 


APPENDIX  "F." 

PuiLADELPniA,  February  16,  1872. 
Eev.  Theodore  S.  Piumney, 

GrERMANTOWX,    PA., 

Rev.  and  Yery  Dear  Sir: — In  pursnance of  yonr  expressed 
Avislies,  I  now  enclose  herein  a  statistical  table,  compiled  from 
my  Sunday  school  records  for  the  seven  preceding  years,  as 
•well  as  the  small  fractional  ,part  of  present  year.  The  nnm- 
hers  stated  are  those  in  attendance  on  Advent  Sunday  for 
the  respective  years. 

Truly  yours, 

SAMUEL  K  KILLfi, 

Assistant  Superintendent  Christ  Church  Sunday  school^  Ger- 
mantown. 

Tear  Total  Pupils  in  Scliool.  Total  Bible  Classes. 

1865 341 71 

1866 .,..318 70 

1867 413 73 

1868 335 73 

1869 345 80 

1870 305 75 

1871 326 74 

1872 328 74 

Included  in  list  of  Bible  classes  for  each  of  the  above  years 
were  34  pupils  of  Mad.  Clement's  school. 


It  may  be  here   noted  that  at   the  last   confirmation  in 

Christ  Church  (in  1871),  a  class  of  thirty  was  presented  to 

the  Bishop. 

53* 


95 

APPENDIX  "  G." 

Letter  from  White  Plains. 

UndervStanding  that  reports  have  been  recently  circulated 
in  Germantown,  to  the  effect  that  Dr.  Rumney's  congrega- 
tion, at  White  Plains,  N.  Y.,  were  tired  of  him,  and  were 
glad  to  get  rid  of  him,  the  following  letter  is  inserted  to 
show  the  utter  falsity  of  such  reports  : 

"Since  reports  have  reached  this  parish,  that  certain  per- 
sons, inimical  to  our  former  beloved  Rector  in  his  present 
field  of  labor,  are  endeavoring  to  bring  accusations  against 
him,  so  as  to  remove  him,  if  possible,  from  his  position  in 
Christ  Church,  Germantown  ;  therefore. 

We,  the  Rector,  Wardens  and  Vestrymen  of  Grace  Church, 
White  Plains,  in  special  session  assembled,  deem  it  but  an 
act  of  duty  towards  the  Rev.  T.  S.  Rumney,  D.  D.,  to  make 
the  declarations  proclaimed  below  in  regard  to  him,  which 
declarations  we  subscribe  with  our  own  names,  inviting 
thereafter  the  signatures  of  all  available  members  of  the 
congregation,  that,  thus  endorsed,  they  may  be  sent  to  Mr. 
H.  II.  Houston,  Rector's  Warden  in  Dr.  Rumney's  Vestry,  to 
be  used  by  him  in  any  emergency,  in  which  they  could  be  of 
service. 

We  declare : 

1.  That  under  Dr.  Rumney's  rectorship  in  this  parish 
the  greatest  harmovy  prevailed,  and  to  such  a  degree,  that 
the  delightfully  harmonious  relations  existing  between  Rector, 
vestry  and  congregation,  became  a  marked  topic  of  conver- 
sation during  meetings  of  the  clergy  of  the  Southern  Mis- 
sionary Convocation.  * 

2.  That  his  success  as  a  Rector  can  easily  be  demonstrated 
by  two  circumstances,  one.  being,  that  the  modest  wooden 
structure  in  which  he  began  his  ministrations,  soon  became 

54* 


93 

too  small  for  the  steadily  inereaping  congregation,  and  had 
to  give  way  to  the  present  beautiful  and  commodious  church 
edifice  ;  the  other  being,  that  this  parish,  from  having  been 
small  and  comparatively  unimportant,  became  one  of  the 
most  flourishing  and  useful  in  the  county. 

8.  That  he  was  beloved  and  revered  not  only  by  all  the 
members  of  his  church  and  congregation,  but  by  all  the 
people  of  this  village  and  district  that  knew  him,  no  matter 
whether  they  belonged  to  the  Methodist,  Baptist,  Presbyte- 
rian, or  any  other  church. 

4.  That  his  departure  brought  grief  to  every  heart,  and 
that  the  poor  of  all  sects  lost  in  him  their  best  friend. 

5.  That  his  purity  and  simplicity  of  life,  his  untiring  and 
unselfish  devotion  to  all  who  needed  aid,  procured  to  him, 
most  justlj^  the  undivided  love  of  the  entire  people,  who 
censured  only  the  last  act  of  his  life  amongst  them,  the  one 
which  took  him  from  their  midst — his  acceptance  of  the  call 
to  Christ  Church,  Germantown. 

White  Plains,  N.  Y.,  Jaimary  18,  1S72. 


F.  B.  Van  Ivlceck, 
Hector  Grace  Churchy  White  Plains,  N.  Y. 

Joshua  Ilorton,  Elisha  Ilorton, 

Wardens. 
M.  M.  Fisher,  Wm.  II.  Iluestis, 

Jno.  Swinburne,  J.  C.  Buckhout, 

E.  T.  Preudhorame,  Samuel  Faile, 

11.  Ernest  Schmid,  S.  A.  Martin, 

Vestrymen. 

Jane  Cammann,  David  Horton, 

Phebe  McDonald,  Isaac  V.  Fowler, 

W.  II.  Dearman,  J.  0.  Dykman, 

Mrs.  S  A.  Dearman,  Jno.  L.  Anderson, 

John  Philips,  P.  Carpenter, 

55* 


97 


Mary  Philips, 
F.  II.  Towell, 
R.  Kennedy, 

E.  Kennedy, 

J.  E,  Kennedy, 
Henry  Williams, 
Mary  E.  Williams, 
Mary  E.  Baldwin, 
O.  Cross, 
St.  John  Brown, 
John  Alctzer, 
Joseph  Lye, 
Helfrich  Bromm, 
Conrad  Bromm,' 
Lewis  Buckhout, 
J.  W.  Buckhout, 
Edward  Schimer, 
L.  S.  Peek, 

F.  J.  Preudhomme, 
Eliza  II.  Fisher, 
Caroline  Fisher, 

Mrs.  Selina  II.  Thompson, 
Gilbert  Lyon, 
Anna  Lyon, 
Sarah  C.  Lyon, 
Phehe  Lyon, 
Lizzie  F.  Walton, 
Mrs  Mary  Farr, 
Thomas  Prior, 


K  B.  Hunter, 
A,  K.  Dunn, 
Walter  G.  Mackay, 
Elisha  Horton,  Jr., 
Henry  M.  Bissell, 
Mrs.  Julie  Adler, 
M.  J.  Adler, 
A.  Adler, 
E.  T.  Adler, 
A.  S,  Jarvis, 
Mrs.  A.  S.  Jarvis, 
Mrs.  A.  S.  Davis, 
Miss  N.  Jarvis, 
Anna  H.  Jones, 
Mrs.  S.  B.  Attwater, 
Katharine  C.  Smith, 
Sarah  M.  Jarvis, 
M.  F.  Harris, 
Mrs.  M.  M.  Fisher, 
II.  A.  Little, 
Mrs.  Wm.  Iluestis, 
E.  S.  Underhill, 
Joseph  Thompson, 
Mrs.  A.  Roe, 
Louisa  Roe, 
Elizabeth  Roe, 
Mrs.  E.  Prior, 
Alex.  W.  Russell, 
R.  L.  Zimmerman. 


93 


ArPEXDIX  "  H." 
MR.  W.  C.  HOUSTON'S  LETTER. 

E.  AVastiington  Lane, 
Germantown,  September  20,  1871. 

Rev.  T.  S.  Rumney,  D.  D., 

Dear  Sir: — I  have  been  informGcl  that  dnring  my  absence 
from  home,  mj  so-n,  on  putting  on  a  coat  that  he  had  not 
worn  for  some  weeks,  discovered  in  the  pocket  of  the  same 
a  letter  addressed  to  me.  Having  authorized  him  to  open 
m3Metters  during  my  absence,  he  opened  it,  and  finding  it 
was  from  you,  repaired  at  once  to  your  house  to  make  to  3'ou 
his  explanation  of  the  subject,  and  as  you  were  absent,  made 
it  to  Mrs.  Rumney. 

Of  the  character  of  his  explanation  I  have  no  knowledge 
beyond  the  above,  as  he  had  to  leave  hon>e  on  business  before 
I  reached  home,  and  has  not  yet  returned ;  but  I  presume  it 
to  be  that  the  letter  was  handed  to  hira  by  the  carrier  ;  that 
he  put  it  in  his  pocket,  intending  to  hand  it  to  me,  but  hap- 
pening to  change  his  coat,  and  not  to  wear  it  again  for 
several  weeks,  he  entirely  forgot  the  receipt  of  it. 

I  can  only  say,  that  I  sincerely  regret  the  occurrence — 
especially  that  the  first  that  has  happened  should  have  been 
with  your  letter,  which  the  committee  felt -they  had  a  right 
to  expect  from  you ;  but  now  having  it,  and  finding  it  was 
dated  five  days  after  our  communication,  it  is  l:ut  just  that 
you  should  be  relieved  from  a  seeming  want  of  courtc^^y  as 
implied  in  the  note  addressed  to  you  under  date  of  August 
25th. 

Your  letter  of  2d,  postmarked  4th  instant,  was  not  received 
by  me  until  Saturday  evening.  'Sly  son  was  expected  home 
yesterday,  and  I  delayed  sending  you  a  "  written  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  missing  letter,"  hoping  to  have  from  him 

57* 


99 

his  explanation  to  send  to  you,  Lut  ns  he  has  i:ot  arrived,  I 
have  deemed  it  best  to  wait  no  longer. 

Eepeating  my  regret  of  the  unfortunate  occurrence,  I  am 
Yery  respectfully  yours, 

W.  C.  IIOUSTO]^, 

Chairman  of  Committee. 

P,  S. — T  open  this  to  say  that  my  son  has  just  arrived  at 
home.  He  says  m}^  explanation  of  the  cause  of  delay  of 
yours  of  31st  July,  is  substantially  correct,  and  that  he  will 
hand  you  this,  if  you  are  iu,  and  confirm  my  statement. 


APPEIs^DIX   "I." 

Bishop  Eastbukn's  Decision. 

l\OTE. — As  Bishop  Eaptl)urn  is  expressly'-  referred  to  by  the  complainants 
as  one  of  their  "highly  esteemed  fathers"  in  the  church,  his  fatherly  action 
in  the  following  case  ought  to  have  weight  with  them.  It  is  certainly  a 
case  in  point  for  the  consideration  of  this  tribunal. 

A  statement  of  the  case  of  the  Rev.  William  Rawlins 
Pickman,  Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Salem,  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Pickman  was  rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  and  on 
April  IStli,  1865,  received  the  following  communication  : 

Easter  Tuesday,  April  18,  1865. 

Rev.  axd  Drar  Sir  : — At  the  anniial  Easter  meeting  last 
evening  the  following  resolutions  were  passed  by  a  vote  of 
thirtj'-four  yeas  to  fifteen  nays. 

'■'■  JResohed,  That  the  proprietors  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  in 

parish  meeting  assembled,  feel  constrained  to  express  their 

opinion  and  conviction  that  the  interests  of  the  parish  will 

be  best  subserved  b}'-  a  termination  of  the  connection  between 

them  and  their  present  Rector. 

58* 


100 

^^liesolvcd,  That  the  clerk  cause  a  copy  of  these  resolutions 
to  be  sent  to  Rev.  Mr.  Pickman,  and  that  when  this  meeting 
adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  this  place  on  Monday  evening 
next,  7J  o'clock  p.  m." 

To  this  the  Eector  replied,  that  werehe  "  to  accede  to  their 
resolution,  he  would  go  from  them  with  an  utterly  ruined 
character ; "  that  while  he  had  been  assailed  by  public  slan- 
der with  a  grossness,  a  pertinacity,  and  a  malignity  which 
falls  to  the  lot  of  few  men,  they  had  refused  as  a  body  to 
bring  any  charges  against  him,  by  meeting  which  he  could 
defend  himself,  and  that  in  short  he  felt  constrained  to  ex- 
press his  '  opinion  and  conviction '  that  the  interests  of  the 
parish  and  the  interests  of  the  Rector  would  be  materially 
injured  by  a  termination  of  the  connection  existing  between 
them  at  present." 

At  a  subsequent  meeting  of  the  "  proprietors,"  the  follow- 
ing resolution  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  thirty-seven  to  eight. 

^''  Hesolved,  That  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  back  harmony 
to  the  parish,  and  wholly  disclaiming  nuy  intention  of 
imputing  to  the  Rector  any  wrong,  the  proprietors  hereby 
reiterate  their  opinion  as  to  the  expediency  and  necessity  of 
such  dissolution,  and  most  respectfully  and  earnestly  request 
their  Rector,  the  Rev.  William  Rawlins  Pickman,  to  resign 
his  charge  of  this  parish." 

The  Rector  declinino-  to  follow  the  advice  of  these  o-entle- 
men,  at  a  subsequent  meeting,  by  a  vote  of  thirty-seven  to 
nine,  they  declared  the  pastoral  relation  dissolved,  and  ap- 
pointed a  committee  "  to  apply  at  once  to  the  Bishop  for  his 
concurrence  in  such  dissolution." 

The  application  having  been  made,  the  Bishop  replied  to 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  as  follows : 

Boston,  71%  10, 1865. 
My  Dear  Sir: — I  have  received  from  you  a  copy  of  certain 

proceedings  of  the  proprietors  of  St  Peter's  Church,  Salem, 

5D* 


101 

including  a  resolution  -u-liicli  was  passed,  dissolvino-  the  pas- 
toral relations  between  the  parish  and  its  Rector,  and  ajipoint- 
ing  a  committee  to  ask  for  n\y  concurrence  in  such  dis.solu- 
tion.  You  also,  on  behalf  of  said  committee,  request  me  to 
indicate  the  time,  place,  and  mode  in  which  it  will  please 
nie  to  meet  the  committee,  and  hear  their  views  on  the 
subject. 

Having  already  heard  statements  from  two  gentlemen 
of  St.  Peter's,  in  a  recent  visit  which  they  made  to  me, 
and  also  stated  my  views  to  them,  I  do  not  perceive  the 
necessity  of  a  personal  conference  with  the  committee.  In 
one  of  the  resolutions  passed  on  May  1st,  the  proprietors 
declare  that,  in  one  resolution  adopted  in  the  annual  Easter 
meeting,  they  had  "  no  purpose  of  casting  any  imputation 
upon  the  character  of  their  Rector  in  any  of  his  relations  as  a 
man,  a  clergyman  or  a  Christian  ;"  and  in  the  other  resolu- 
tion they  wholly  disclaim  "•  any  intention  of  imputing  to 
the  Rector  any  wrong." 

This  being  the  statement  of  the  proprietors  in  regard  to 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Pickman,  I  feel  that  I  should  do  a  great  act  of 
injustice  to  him,  by  concurring  with  the  action  of  the  pro- 
prietors.   I  therefore  decline  so  doing. 

I  am  very  respectfully,  yours, 

i\iA2{T0^  EASTEURN. 
John  Kilburn, 


At  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  Mr.  Conarroe  said: 
There  was  a  mistake  in  the  copies  of  the  canon  printed  on 
a  loose  slip,  and  furnished  by  complainant's  counsel  to  this 
Pourd,  and  we  have  therefore  had  the  canon  correctly 
printed  at  the  end  of  this  pamphlet. 

Mr.  Vail.     I'lease  state  the  mistake? 

Mr.  Conarroe.  The  mistake  was  in  the  transposition  of 
the  proviso — an  awkward  error. 


102 

Mr.  Vail.  Please  state  how  it  was  made,  so  that  the 
gentlemen  of  the  Board  may  know,  or  they  may  imagine 
Mr.  Vail  made  the  mistake. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  I  beg  pardon.  The  mistake  occurred  in 
this  way :  Mr.  Vail  took  the  canon  from  the  columns  of  the 
Daily  Churchman,  where  it  was  printed  erroneously.  I  have' 
taken  it  from  the  official  copy  furnished  to  me  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Perry,  Secretary  of  the  General  Convention. 

Mr.  Vail.  May  it  please  the  Doard,  we  are  prepared  to 
go  on  at  any  time  this  Board  may  decide.  We  prefer  that 
you  should  indicate  to  us  the  manner  in  which  we  should 
proceed.  "Within  a  week  from  to-day,  we  shall  be  prepared 
to  go  on  with  the  evidence,  or  hear  anything  that  may  be 
said  on  the  other  side,  or  if  these  gentlemen  ask  two  weeks  ? 

Mr.  Conarroe.  "These  gentlemen"  do  not  ask  two 
weeks.  It  is  to  be  supposed  that  the  complainants  knew 
what  their  case  was  before  it  was  commenced.  They  had 
months  in  which  to  prepare  it,  but  we  heard  their  com- 
plaint for  the  first  time  when  the  statement  was  read  before 
this  Board,  and  of  course  required  time  to  put  in  an  answer. 
After  an  answer  is  read,  which  is  simply  responsive  to  the 
allegations,  it  is  not  usual  to  allow  complainants  any  con- 
tinuance at  all,  but  as  a  matter  of  courtesy  to  the  other 
side,  I  suggest  that  Monday  next  at  furthest  be  fixed,  and 
that  this  Board  proceed  with  the  case  at  that  time.  There 
is  nothing  which  requires  a  week's  delay.  We  have  the 
right  to  demand  that  the  complainants  go  on  with  their 
case,  but  we  are  willing  to  concede  an  extension  of  time 
until  Monday. 

Mr.  Price.  The  complaint  has  been  read  to  the  court, 
and  we  certainly  were  entitled  to  know  in  advance,  what 
would  be  the  case  set  up  on  the  opposite  side.  A  great 
deal  of  it  appears  to  be  confession  and  avoidance,  and  a 
good  deal  of  the  contents  of  the  pamphlet  that  has  been 
read,  is  matter  which  would  hardly  be  listened  to  by  the 
court  as  evidence,  and  certainly  does  not  apply  to  the  com- 


103 

plaint  as  it  has  been  made.  What  I  understood  M'r.  Yail 
to  ask  of  the  court,  is  simply  to  designate  what  course  of 
proceeding  they  desire  this  case  to  take. 

We  are  not  just  now  in  the  jDOsition  of  applying  for  time, 
but  are  simply  asking  that  the  court  shall  indicate  to  us 
in  what  manner  they  propose  we  shall  go  on,  and  in  what 
manner  they  propose  to  hear  the  case,  and  of  course  we  shall 
adapt  our  case  to  their  plan,  and  if  any  more  time  is  desired 
by  the  other  side  they  can  have  it. 

Mr.  CoNAiiROE.  Without  desiring  to  trespass  upon  tlie 
time  of  the  court,  I  would  say  that  the  position  of  the  case 
at  present  is  this  :  The  complainants  have  brought  in  their 
com[)laint.  We  have  put  in  our  answer.  The  canon  under 
which  this  Board  of  Reference  is  •assembled  prescribes  that 
the  tive  Presbyters  shall  hear  the  allegations  and  proofs 
which  the  parties  may  submit  to  them.  You  have  heard 
the  allegations  on  the  other  side,  and  you  have  heard  the 
answer,  and  such  allegations  as  have  been  made  on  behalf 
of  the  respondent.  It  now  simply  remains  for  the  com- 
plainants to  go  on  and  prove  their  allegations.  If  they 
fail  to  prove  their  allegations,  the  case  falls.  If  thej^  prove 
anything  material,  opposing  proof  will  be  furnished  by  the 
respondent. 

Mr.  Price.  I  do  not  understand  the  case  to  be  quite  as 
now  mentioned.  I  understand  the  case  presented  to  your 
notice  to  be  that  a  ditference  exists  between  the  Vestry  and 
the  Kector  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown.  That  was 
shown  to  you  in  the  statement  presented  at  the  first  meet- 
ing; enlarged  upon  in  a  manner,  perhaps  not  necessary, 
showing  to  what  ends  it  had  led.  ISTow  in  answer  to 
that  statement,  or  in  what  is  called  an  answer  to  it,  a 
pamphlet  has  been  read,  Avhich  if  I  view  it  correctly,  sus- 
tains the  allegation  that  is  made  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
plainants; to  wit,  that  a  ditference  exists  between  the  Vestry 
and  tlie  Rector  of  Christ  Churcli,  Germantown.  My  friend, 
Mr.  Conarroe,  appears  to  think  that  we  have  statements  of 


10-1 

fact  in  our  pamphlet  which  we  are  bound  now  to  go  on  and 
maintain  by  proof.  I  say  the  only  important  fact  we  bring 
to  the  attention  of  the  coart  is  that  a  difference  exists.  As 
to  the  other  facts,  I  do  not  suppose  it  is  necessary  to  give 
them  in  proof  before  you;  some  of  them  are  confessed' and 
admitted  by  the  counter  statement.  If  any  proof  is  to  be 
given  as  to  these  facts  in  any  form,  it  should  come  from  the 
other  side.  I  desire  that  my  friend  should  designate  what 
facts  he  thinks  we  should  support  by  proof? 

Mr.  Conarroe.  All  the  facts,  may  it  please  the  court, 
which  the  other  side  consider  material  for  the  support  of 
their  case.  If  it  is  maintained  that  all  this  court  need  do 
is  to  ascertain  the  mere  fact  that  a  difference  exists,  and 
that  then — no  matter  whether  that  difference  be  well 
founded  or  not,  no  matter  who  is  in  fault,  no  matter  whether 
the  clergyman  be  in  fault  or  not — the  mere  fact  of  such 
difference  is  conclusive,  and  under  this  canon  this  court  can 
go  no  further  into  the  case,  but  must  recommend  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  pastoral  connection,  I  should  like  to  know  it, 
for  I  would  have  something  to  say  on  that  point.  Is  that 
the  complainants'  view  of  the  canon  ? 

Mr.  Price.  I  can  only  say  that  is  the  language  of  the 
canon,  and  I  suppose  that  should  govern  the  court  and  the 
advocates  also. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  If  that  is  the  language  of  the  canon  I  beg 
leave  to  read  a  little  more  of  it.  The  words  of  the  canon 
under  which  this  Board  is  constituted  are  these; 

"  Section  second.  The  five  Presbj^ters  thus  designated 
^hall  constitute  a  Board  of  Reference  to  consider  such  con- 
troversy, and  if  after  hearing  such  allegations  and  proofs 
as  the  parties  may  submit,  a  majority  of  the  Presbyters  shall 
be  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  hope  of  a  favorable  termi- 
nation of  such  controversy,  and  that  a  dissolution  of  the 
coimection  between  such  Rector  or  Assistant  Minister  and 
his  parish  or  congregation  is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace 
of  the  Church  and  promote  its  prosperity,  such  Presbyters 
shall  recommend  to  the  Bishop  that  such  minister  shall  be 


105 

required  to  relinquish  his  connection  with  such  Church  or 
parish,  on  such  conditions  as  may  appear  to  them  proper 
and  reasonable." 

This  Board  is  therefore  to  ascertain,  First — whether  there 
is  a  controversy. 

Second,  whether  that  controversy  is  irreconcilable. 

Third,  whether  a  dissolution  is  the  only  remedy  for  the 
controversy.  Whether  a  dissohition  of  the  connection  is 
necessary  to  promote  the  peace  of  the  Church  and  the  pros- 
perity of  the  parish.  In  ascertaining  these  facts  they  can  do 
nothing  less  than  go  into  the  merits  of  the  whole  case.  If 
it  is  proved  that  the  agitators  form  but  a  small  insignificant 
minority;  or  a  minority,  if  they  be  not  small  or  insignificant; 
then  it  only  remains  for  the  respondent  to  show  that  such 
a  dissolution  is  not  necessary  to  restore  the  peace  of  the 
Church.  "We  have  here,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  answer, 
the  certificate  of  certain  vestrymen,  former  vestrymen  and 
members  of  the  congregation,  directly  on  that  point. 

"AVe  further  certify  to  our  firm  belief  that  the  interests 
of  the  parish  and  the  interests  of  Rector  would  be  materially 
injured  by  a  dissolution  of  the  present  pastoral  coimection  ; 
and  that  the  peace  of  the  Church  would  be  more  disturbed 
by  the  removal  of  the  Rector  at  the  present  time  than  by 
any  other  possible  "cause." 

NoAV  the  statement  on  the  one  side  must  be  proved,  and 
the  case  of  the  respondent  on  the  other  hand,  of  course, 
must  be  proved.  If  the  complainants  prove  no  case  here, 
there  is  nothing  for  the  respondent  to  reply  to.  It  is  not  a 
mere  question  of  whether  this  court  or  Board  shall  ascertain 
that  there  is  a  controversy  and  that  it  is  irreconcilable,  but 
the  question  is  whether  there  is  a  controversy,  who  is  in 
lault  in  that  controversy,  and  is  a  dissolution  of  the  pas- 
toral connection  the  projier  and  the  onl}''  necessary  remedy? 

Mr.  Vail.  I  think  it  would  be  as  well  probably  to 
read  a  little  history  of  this  canon,  as  it  is  a  new  canon. 

Mr.  Coxarroe.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  the  gentle- 
man, but  really,  this  hearing  must  proceed  in  some  sort  of 


106 

orderly  and  ]eo;al  way.  The  gentleman  knows  hiniPolf,  and 
I  know,  that  he  could  not  atteniiit  such  a  manner  of  con- 
ducting a  cause  in  court.  When  the  plaintill"  is  called  on 
to  prove  liis  case,  if  liis  counsel  were  to  say,  "I  will  read  a 
history  of  a  canon  "  or  of  an  Act  of  Assendjly  it  would  be 
absurd.     It  might  he  very  well  in  his  argument  at  tlie  close. 

J\1r.  Vail.  I  leave  it  to  you  gentlemen.  Our  view  of 
the  case  is  this:  There  seems  to  be  some  hesitation  in  the 
beginning,  a  little  hesitation  as  to  how  we  are  to  proceed 
in  this  cause,  otherwise  it  may  take  one  or  five  years,  if 
we  are  to  take  up  the  whole  congregation  and  bring  them 
before  you  ;  I  submit  entirely  to  your  decision.  AVe  do  not 
want  to  inflict  any  more  up(m  3'ou  than  we  can  help.  This 
is  merely  to  show  you  how  the  canon  originated  and  what 
it  was  intended  for,  without  saying  anything  about  the 
present  case. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harris.  I  agree  thoroughly  with  my  colleague 
that  this  is  hardly  the  time  in  which  to  give  a  history  of 
the  canon.     That  properly  forms  part  of  the  argument. 

Mr.  Vail.  I  merely  ofier  it  in  this  way;  for  this 
honorable  Board  must  of  course  indicate  some  form  of 
proceeding.  It  may  be  said  that  in  every  court  of  justice, 
the  history  of  every  statute  is  well  known  to  the  court. 
The  court  have  laid  down  rules  for  their  order  and  proceed- 
ing. I  have  been  unable  to  iind  but  four  cases  under  this 
canon.  It  has  been  so  seldom  enforced  that  strict  rules  are 
not  laid  down.  So  that  each  Board  will  have  to  lay  down 
some  I'ules  for  its  own  guidance.  We  do  not  wish  to  go 
into  an  argument  as  to  the  merits  of  this  case;  we  only 
Avish  to  show  the  origin  and  what  was  intended  to  be  done, 
bimply  the  origin  of  this  very  canon. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  I  can  only  renew  my  objection  that  such 
a  proceeding  is  totally  out  of  jilace  at  this  stage  of  the  cause. 

At  this  [)oint  the  Board  withdrew  for  consultation. 

Rev.  Br.  Beasley.  I  am  directed,  first  to  ask  the  ques- 
tion, are  both  parties  pre[)ared  to  rest  the  case  upon  the 
pamphlets  they  have  presented  ? 


107 

Mr.  Price.  I  think  that  on  behalf  of  the  complainants, 
I  might  say  yes.  In  the  absence  of  the  court  I  have  been 
suggesting  to  the  counsel  on  the  other  side,  that  each 
pamjihlet  contains  sundry  statenients,  which,  in  the  originals, 
bear  the  signatures  of  responsible  parties.  I  ask  why  call 
upon  them  to  bear  witness  to  what  they  have  already  said 
over  their  signatures  ?  "Why  cannot  we  admit  on  each  side 
that  the  pamphlets  shall  be  taken  by  the  Board  for  what 
the}'  are  worth.  As  at  present  advised  I  should  answer  the 
President  of  the  Board  in  the  affirmative. 

j\1r.  Conarroe.  We  are  perfectly  willing  to  agree  to  sub- 
mit the  case  upon  the  pamphlets. 

(A  consultation  here  ensued  between  the  Rev.  Dr.  Good- 
win and  the  counsel  for  the  complainants.) 

Mr.  Price.  The  complainants  think  that  they  may  have 
occasion  to  add  some  further  evidence  and  facts,  but  so  far 
as  the  pamphlets  go  they  are  willing  to  adopt  them. 

Rev.  Dr.  YarXxVLL.  Then  you  don't  submit  the  case  on 
the  pamphlets. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  IMay  it  please  the  Court,  the  complainants 
are  simply  avoiding  the  question  ;  for  if  the  complainants 
have  something  to  add,  the  respondent  may  have  something 
to  add,  and  you  will  never  get  to  the  end  of  it. 

I  would  like  to  ask  if  the  venerable  gentleman  on  my 
right  is  one  of  the  counsel  in  this  case?  I  see  a  gentleman 
who  was  nominated  by  the  complainants  as  one  of  the 
Presbyters  to  compose  this  Board,  whose  name  was  excepted 
to  for  cause,  and  whose  name  was  stricken  from  the  list. 
lie  appears  to  be  acting  as  counsel  on  tlie  other  side,  the 
impropriety  of  which  is  obvious. 

Pev.  Dr.  Beasley.  Are  the  Board  to  understand  that 
both  parties  will  rest  their  case  upon  the  pamphlets  as  we 
have  them  before  us  ? 

Mr.  Price.  Kot  entirely  rest  the  case  ujion  the  pam- 
phlets.     Upon  consulting  with  one  of  the  gentlemen  I  am 


108 

informed  that  there  ought  to  be  some  evidence  added  to 
the  statements  of  the  pamphlets.  Therefore,  I  am  willing  to 
rest  it  upon  the  statements  that  tlie  pamphlets  contain,  to 
that  extent  on  each  side,  and  to  add  what  they  may  deem 
necessary.    I  am  not  able  to  state  to  what  length. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  The  complainants  have  expressly  rested 
their  case,  may  it  please  the  Court,  on  the  statement.  Now 
it  is  a  well  known  point  in  criminal  law,  (and  this  canon  to 
some  extent  is  a  penal  statute)  that  after  an  indictment  is 
submitted,  it  cannot  be  amended.  These  prosecutors  here 
are  really  asking  to  have  a  chance  to  amend  their  indict- 
ment, by  adding  "  whatever  may  be  deemed  necessary." 

Mr.  Price.  IsTot  even  that,  but  adding  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  what  is  originally  alleged. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  There  is  no  objection  to  that,  if  both 
sides  are  to  go  into  testimony. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.  Under  the  present  circumstances  I 
have  to  ask  the  complainants  if  they  are  prepared  to  go  on 
immediately. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harris.  Mr.  chairman,  I  beg  to  renew  the 
question  which  was  put  by  my  colleague,  and  which  was 
not  answered,  whether  the  Rev.  gentleman  on  the  right  is 
acting  as  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  complainants  ?  I  would 
like  to  have  a  clear  and  definite  understanding.  I  refer 
to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin. 

We  understood  that  the  counsel  for  the  complainants  in 
this  case  were  Mr.-  Vail  and  Mr.  Price.  There  appears  to  be 
a  consultation  with  the  Reverend  gentleman  and  the  com- 
plainants, and  I  ask  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  whether 
he  is  one  of  the  counsel  on  the  part  of  the  complainants  ? 

Because,  if  so,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  delicacy  of  the  pro- 
ceeding might  be  questioned,  as  the  gentleman  was  one 
whose  name  was  put  upon  the  list  as  one  of  the  judges  in 
this  case.  He  was  excepted  to  by  the  respondent  for  cause. 
He  is  also  a  clerical  member  of  the  Standing  Committee 
of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  under  whose  review,  in 
the   absence   of  the   Bishop,  this    case  may  possibly  come. 


109 

I^ow,  I  leave  it  to  the  Court  whether  his  acting  as  counsel 
in  this  case  is  consistent  with  propriety. 

Mr.  W.  C.  Houston  (one  of  the  complainants).  It  may 
be  proper  to  say  that  we  clearly  understood  that  we  might 
have  a  clerical  representative. 

Eev.  Mr.  Harris.  I  do  not  deny  that,  and  I  have  no 
ohjcction  at  all  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  (though  I 
liave  not  consulted  with  him  at  all,  I  am  speaking  of  my 
own  motion)  to  the  complainants  getting  as  many  Preshyters 
as  they  think  proper  to  advise  them,  but  I  claim  under 
the  peculiar  circumstances,  that  this  individual  Presbyter 
is  a  little  out  of  place,  when  he  appears  as  one  of  the  counsel 
on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  Vail.     On  what  grounds  ? 

Pev.  Mr.  Harris.  On  the  ground  that  his  name  was 
put  upon  the  list  of  judges  in  this  cause  as  a  member  of 
this  Board.  That  it  was  excepted  to  by  this  respondent 
for  cause,  and  stricken  off,  and,  therefore,  one  would  suppose 
on  that  ground  his  connection  with  the  case  officially  would 
cease. 

I  oi)jcct  to  him  in  the  second  place,  because  he  is  a  cleri- 
cal member  of  the  Standing  Committee,  a  committee  which 
acts  as  a  "council  of  advice"  to  the  Bishop,  and  that  in 
t!.e  course  of  his  official  duties  in  that  capacity,  he  may 
have  to  review  this  very  case,  which  he  has  worked  up. 

jMr.  Vail.     Will  my  friends  point  out  the  reason  of  this  ? 

Mr.  Coxarroe.  It  is  looked  upon  in  the  same  light  as  if 
one  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  to  come  down 
and  assist  in  the  trial  of  a  cause  in  the  District  Court, 
when  he  might  afterwards  be  called  on  to  review  the  case. 

Mr.  Vail.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  state  under  what 
section  of  tiie  canon  the  decision  of  this  Board  will  come 
before  the  Standing  Committee  for  review  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Harris.  I  believe,  sir,  that  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee has,  as  one  of  its  duties,  the  counsel  and  advice  of 
the  Bishop,  and  this  case  may  come,  or  the  judgment  of 
this  Board  may  come,  before  the  Bishop.     I   presume  my 


110 

learned  friend  will  not  dispute  that,  in  fact,  it  may  come 
before  him  in  such  a  way  that  he  may  wish  to  have  advice 
as  to  how  he  shall  act.  It  is  a  perfectly  supposahle  case.  I 
do  not  say  it  will  be  so.  I  will  not  argue  the  case.  If  he 
thinks  I  have  not  drawn  attention  to  him  sufficiently,  I 
have  nothing  more  to  say. 

Mr.  Vail.  If  you  will  be  kind  enough  to  show  any  sec- 
tion of  this  canon  which  requires  that  the  judgment  of  this 
Board  may  come  under  the  decision  of  the  IHshop;  I  am  so 
stupid  I  am  not  able  to  see  it  in  any  place.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  gentleman's  name,  as  one  of  the  Presbyters,  was 
stricken  off  for  cause,  but  because  the  respondent  has  a 
right  under  the  canon,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the 
Courts.  IsTine  were  named,  and  thej'  had  to  be  reduced'  to 
five  by  the  alternate  striking  off  of  names. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harris.  I  beg  your  pardon,  I  know  of  one 
member  who  was  stricken  off  by  the  other  side  from  mo- 
tives of  delicacy.  I  refer  to  a  clergyman  of  Germantown, 
with  whom  some  of  the  other  side  have  had  verj'  pleasant 
relations,  but  thinking  it  would  at  D.ny  rate  serve  to  create 
an  unpleasant  feeling,  and  in  the  kindness  of  their  hearts, 
so  I  understood,  they  objected  to  his  name.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  the  cause  in  this  case  was  the  same,  for  I  do  not 
believe  it  was. 

JMr.  Vail.  My  friend  will  agree  with  me  as  to  my  as- 
sertion as  to  the  practice  in  the  courts.  The  counsel  have  a 
right  to  strike  off  so  many  names,  absolutelj',  of  a  jury 
without  any  reason.  They  then  can  go  on  and  strike 
off  further,  if  they  can  give  cause  as  to  relationship  or  any- 
thiug  of  that  kind.  In  legal  parlance,  for  cause,  means  a 
certain  thing,  but  striking  the  name  off  here  means  another 
thing. 

Rev.  ISIr.  Harris.  The  name  was  stricken  off  because 
the  gentleman  was  a  member  of  the  Standing  Committee. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  It  is  an  immaterial  point,  may  it  please 
the  court.  I  do  not  tliink  it  is  a  point  worth  arguing.  It 
is  a  question  of  propriety.     I  Avill  only  say  one  word,  and 


Ill 

that  is,  if  the  other  side  can  stand  the  impropriety  of  the 
thing,  I  am  sure  we  can.     We  have  nothing  more  to  say. 

]\Ir.  Vail.  Then  I  would  ask  the  Board,  as  it  is  now  five 
o'clock,  to  adjourn  to  either  Monday  or  Thursday. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.  We  now  adjourn  to  meet  at  this 
place  on  Monday  next  at  3  p.  m. 

FOURTH  DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

March  4,  IS 72. 

The  Board  of  Presbyters  met  in  the  Vestry  room  of  the 
Church  of  Epiphany  at  3  p.  m. 

Present — Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.  Rev.  Dr.  Yarnall,  Rev.  Dr. 
Miller,  Rev.  Dr.  Davies,  Rev.  Mr.  Perry. 

The  complainants  and  their  counsel. 

The  respondent  and  his  counsel. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.  The  Secretary  will  now  read  a 
minute  prepared  by  the  Board. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Perry  then  read  the  following: 

The  Board  of  Presbyters  convened  to  consider  the  case  of 
the  controversy  between  the  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Ger- 
mantown,  and  the  Vestr}^  of  the  said  Church,  having  heard 
the  statement  of  the  Yestry  and  the  answer  on  behalf  of 
the  Rector,  are  very  desirous  to  have  the  matter,  which 
has  thus  been  brought  before  them,  settled  as  speedily  as 
possible. 

They  wish  to  avert,  if  they  can,  the  unseeml}'"  continu- 
ance of  strife,  and  especially  at  this  holy  season,  to  avoid  the 
scandal  of  heated  debate  and  acrimonious  contest.  They 
are  therefore  ready  to  take  the  case  as  it  has  been  presented 
to  them,  and  give  it  their  careful  consideration. 

They  have  simply  to  determine  so  far  as  the  basis  of  any 
action  to  be  recommended  hy  them  may  be  concerned  : 

I.  "Whether  there  is  any  hope  of  a  favorable  termination 
of  the  present  controversy. 

II.  Whether  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between  the 
Rector   of   Christ  Church,  Germantown,  and  his  parish  is 


112 

necessary  to  restore  the  peace  of  the  Church  and  promote  its 
J)rosperit3^ 

But  should  it  bo  desired  to  introduce  any  farther  proofs 
in  support  of  what  has  ah'eady  heen  alleged  as  ground 
of  complaint  against  the  Eector,  such  proofs  must  now  he 
brought  forward,  as  the  final  statement  to  be  presented  on 
the  part  of  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church,  and  opportunity 
will  be  given  for  the  respondent  to  answer. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.  Are  the  gentlemen  now  read}'-  to 
proceed  ? 

jMr.  Vail.  We  have  a  statement,  or  rather  reply,  of 
eight  pages,  to  the  answer  read  on  behalf  of  the  Rector. 

Me.  Conarroe.  We  would  like  to  see  this  before  it  is 
read,  because  we  may  have  a  right  to  object  to  it.  AYe  may 
be  willing  to  have  it  admitted.  If  so,  it  will  save  time  and 
discussion. 

Mr.  Vail.  We  beg  pardon  of  the  Board  for  taking 
the  time.  I  liad  promised  my  friend  (Mr.  Conarroe)  a 
copy  of  this  supplemental  statement  before  we  came  here, 
but  although  we  hurried  the  printer,  we  could  not  get  it 
until  just  before  the  time  for  the  Board  to  meet. 

Mr.  Vail.  (Mr.  Conarroe  having  finished  reading  the 
paper.)  May  it  please  the  Board,  my  friend,  after  reading 
the  document,  has  concluded  not  to  object,  therefore,  we 
will  read  it.  This  is  a  reply  of  the  Committee  of  the  Vestry 
to  certain  allegations  in  the  answer. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  We  would  like  to  understand  whether, 
when  this  supplemental  statement  is  put  in,  that  closes  com- 
plainants' case? 

Mr.  Vail.  Certainly,  there  is  nothing  more.  We  do  not 
intend  to  introduce  any  oral  testimony  at  all.  That  is  our 
object,  as  we  appreciate  what  the  Board  has  already  said, 
fully.  We  do  not  wish  to  keep  up  this  disturbance  any 
longer  than  can  possibly  be  done. 

The  supplemental  statement  was  then  read  by  Mr.  Vail, 
as  follows : 


113 

In  reply  to  certain  allegations  made  in  "  an  answer  on  be- 
half of  the  Rector,"  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church,  German- 
town,  respectfully  say,  that  in  their  judgment,  nothing 
contained  in  the  answer  controverts  the  position  taken  by 
them,  viz.  :  That  there  is  "  a  controversy  between  the  Rector 
and  the  Vestry  ;  that  there  is  no  hope  of  a  favorable  termi- 
naliou  of  such  controversy,  and  that  a  dissolution  of  the 
connection  between  the  Rector  and  congregation  is  necessary 
to  restore  the  peace  of  the  Church  and  promote  its  pros- 
perity." Page  31  of  the  answer  is  the  only  one  which 
attempts  to  explicitly  deny  any  of  these  positions,  and  there 
the  opinion  of  ten  gentlemen  are  given. 

The  Rector's  advocates  have  endeavored  to  sum  up  the 
substance  of  our  statement  and  to  refute  it.  Have  they 
succeeded  ? 

They  say  that  we  asserted  "  that  Christ  Church,  German- 
town,  was  organized  by  certain  persons  in  the  interest  of  the 
Low  Church  party,"  we  did  so  assert,  it  is  true,  and  they 
themselves  confess  it.  The  paper  printed  an  pages  3  and  4: 
of  our  statement  was  prepared  by  Alfred  R.  Potter,  one  of 
the  signers,  and  was  signed  by  the  others  to  show  that  "  It 
was  got  up  as  a  Low  Church."  (See  Mr.  Champion's  letter, 
page  5,  of  the  answer.) 

The  statement  of  the  seven  gentlemen  is  clear  and  distinct. 
The  long  letter  of  Mr.  Beekman  Potter  contains  but  two 
things — abuse  of  the  Vestry  and  other  incorporators,  and  a 
setting  forth  of  his  personal  claims.  As  to  the  absence  of 
the  signature  of  C.  W.  Robinson,  you  are  respectfully  re- 
ferred to  page  27  of  our  statement. 

The  Vestry  deny  that  they  have  ever  said  or  intimated, 
that  Christ  Church  "owes  allegiance  not  to  the  church  at 
large,  but  to  the  persons  who  contributed  money  to  its  erec 
tion."  The  present  Vestry  have  never  repudiated  any  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Imt  are 
faithful  adherents  thereto,  and  propose  so  to  continue. 
Should  they  be  culled    upou  to  select  another   Rector,  they 


114 

hereby  declare  that  they  would  endeavor  to  elect  one  whose 
loyalty  to  its  doctrines  and  discipline  cannot  be  doubted. 

As  to  the  second  summary  upon  page  3  of  the  Answer, 
viz. :  "  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ruinney  was  elected  Rector,  un- 
seen, unheard,  unknown,  upon  the  representations  of  certain 
members  of  the  Yestry,  which  representations'  betrayed  the 
remaining  vestrymen  into  voting  for  him;"  the  Vestry  did 
80  state,  and  are  prepared  to  sustain  their  statements.  Mr. 
LeBoutillier  distinctly  and  positively  states  that  the  ques- 
tions recited  on  page  17  of  our  statement,  and  denied  on 
page  10  of  the  Answer,  were  asked  by  him  and  answered  as 
stated. 

At  the  Vestry  Meeting  the  nominator  of  Dr.  Rumney 
read  to  another  Vestryman  a  letter  addressed  to  a  member 
of  Christ  Church,  which  stated  that  Dr.  R.'s  church  views 
would  not  accord  with  those  of  Christ  Church  ;  and,  after 
reading  it,  placed  it  in  his  pocket,  saying  it  would  not  do  to 
read  it  to  the  Vestry.  Had  that  letter  been  read  this  board 
need  not  have  been  convened. 

We  did  say  "  that  a  very  short  time  served  to  show  that 
Dr.  Rumney  was  not  an  evangelical  man,  as  we  Low  Church- 
men understand  it,  and  that  he  was  not  Avilling  to  support 
these  evangelical  societies  which  it  had  been  the  invariable 
practice  of  Christ  Church  to  support."  We  do  not  under- 
stand from  anything  that  has  yet  been  said  or  alleged  in  the 
answer  or  otherwise,  that  ])r.  Rumney  claims  to  be  an 
evangelical  man  as  we  Low  Churchmen  understand  it,  or 
that  he  sympathizes  in  any  manner  with  the  Low  Church 
party,  or  that  the  collections  for  the  evangelical  societies 
were  made  by  his  especial  choice  or  desire,  instead  of  under 
the  direction  of  the  Vestry,  given  in  accordance  with  the 
Dj'-Laws  on  the  subject  of  collections  in  the  church. 

The  fiict  that  Dr.  Rumney's  church  views  and  ecclesias- 
tical position  are  not  in  harmony  with  those  of  the  Vestry  of 
Christ  Church  as  at  present  and  heretofore  constituted,  is 
too  well  known  to  require  to  be  substantiated  by  proof  in 
detail. 


115 

As  to  the  compp.rntive  condition  of  Christ  Church  under 
the  former  Rector,  and  its  alleged  decline  under  its  present 
Rector,  we  do  not  understand  that  any  material  point  made 
in  the  statement  of  the  vestry  has  Ijeeu  rebutted  in  the 
answer  of  the  Advocates. 

With  reference  to  the  Reading  Room,  we  merely  intend  to 
state  that  it  was  in  useful  and  successful  operation  under  the 
Rectorship  of  jMr  Atkins,  and  that  it  has  not  been  restored 
by  the  present  Rector. 

As  to  the  statement,  that  the  "  Mission  in  Lcihman  street 
is  fully  as  successful  as  Centre  Mission,"  we  can  only  reply, 
that  it  must  have  been  made  under  an  entire  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  former  condition  and  work  of  Centre  jNIission. 

The  statement  on  page  18  of  the  Answer,  that  there  is  not 
now  a  vacant  pew  to  rent  in  the  church  is  incorrect  ;  the 
fact  being  that  there  are  thirty-live  pews  and  parts  of  pews 
not  rented  ;  twentj^-four  of  which  are  set^  apart  as  free  pews. 
(The  Accounting  Warden's  books  show  that  ninety-three 
whole  pews  and  parts  of  five  pews  are  rented  ;  two  others 
are  occupied  respectively  by  the  Rector's  family  and  the 
Sexton. 

Many  of  the  pews  which  are  rented  are  held  by  persons 
who  desire  a  chano-e  in  the  Rectorship. 

The  foot-note  on  page  19  is  altogether  incorrect.  ISTo  in- 
accuracy was  admitted  at  the  reading,  and  no  promise  was 
made  to  insert  the  word  "  not."  The  facts  are  correctly  re- 
cited in  the  Statement  of  the  Vestry.  The  note  from  W.  C. 
Houston,  of  September  20th,  to  Dr.  Rumney,  was  not  pub- 
lished in  the  statement  because  it  was  never  presented  to 
the  Vestry. 

The  tabular  statement  of  collections  made  on  page  29  of 
Statement  of  the  Vestry  is  correct.  It  professed  to  give  only 
the  average  of  the  regular  annual  stated  collections  for  cer- 
tain specified  objects,  and  not  to  include  any  special  collec- 
tions. 

The  collection  for  Foreign  Missions,  referred  to  on  page  20 
of  the  Answer,  was  a  special  collection  taken  in  June,  not 


116 

in  September,  and  tlierefore  not.  included.  Special  collections 
for  other  objects  were  taken  within  the  five  years,  which,  if 
included,  would  make  the  difference  still  more  marked  ;  one 
especially  of  over  $3,000,  another  of  $4,000.  On  pages  20, 
21,  and  22  of  the  Answer,  reference  is  made  to  individual 
contributions,  and  the  Accounting  Warden's  statement 
called  in  question.  This  reference  shows  that  these  amounts 
formed  no  part  of  the  regular  collections  in  the  church,  and 
therefore  had  no  place  in  the  Accounting  Warden's  books. 

It  is  plain  now,  if  it  was  not  before,  that  the  gentlemen, 
whose  private  contributions  we  referred  to,  did  not  intend 
that  their  gifts  should  go  to  the  credit  of  Christ  Church. 
Is  it  ingenuous  to  claim  that  credit?  These  gentlemen  as 
plainly  intended  that  the  societies  in  question  should  not  suf. 
fer  from  the  deficiency  in  the  contributions  of  Christ  Church. 
We  suppose  every  man  has  the  right  to  make  or  withhold 
his  benefactions  when  and  where  and  through  what  chan- 
nels he  sees  fit,  and  that  no  other  party  on  earth  has  any 
more  right  to  call  in  question  his  conscientious  action  in  do- 
ing what  he  will  with  his  own,  than  he  has  to  call  a  man  to 
account  for  votins;  according-  to  his  conscience. 

It  will  certainly  appear  that  if  these  gentlemen  withdrew 
or  were  driven  away  from  Christ  Church,  the  amount  of  her 
contributions  to  these  objects  would  be  greatly  diminished. 

Article  3d,  Section  1st  of  the  By-Laws  provides  that  the 
Accounting  Warden  shall  receive  the  moneys  of  the  Church, 
and  pay  the  same  under  the  direction  of  tbe  Vestry.  The 
"Warden  states  that  in  no  j'ear  since  he  became  Warden  has 
he  failed  to  present  to  the  Vestry  his  yeai-ly  financial  state- 
ment, duly  audited  by  the  [)roper  committee.  After  it  has 
been  presented,  it  becomes  the  property  of  the  Vestry,  and 
the  Warden  is  no  further  accountable  for  it.  We  may  add, 
that  he  has  frequently  been  complimented  upon  tbe  accuracy 
with  which  the  accounts  have  been  kept.  It  will  thus  be 
seen  how  groundless  are  the  aspersions  cast  on  him  on  page 
28  of  the  Answer. 

At  the  bottom  of  page  22  of  the  Answer,  an   attempt  is 


117 

made  to  show  an  increase  in  collections  taken  for  tlie  Ameri- 
can Church  Missionary  Society.  In  the  language  of  the 
Answer,  "  accuracy  of  figures  does  not  seem  to  he  one  of 
their  gifts  ;  "  the  true  figures  are — 

Collection,  September  18th,  1870,      .      .      $473  85 

"  "  24th,  1871,     .      .  54  82 

Decrease $419  03 

On  page  23  of  the  Answer,  a  vague  charge  is  made.  If  it 
is  intended  to  state  that  the  persons  who  now  oppose  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney,  stirred  up  controversies  in  Christ  Church 
in  the  times  of  Mr.  Atkins,  it  is  unfounded.  As  to  the  gross 
personal  attack  upon  Mr.  Charles  Spencer,  we  need  onl}-  re- 
fer to  his  nearly  sixteen  years'  connection  with  Christ 
Church  as  a  communicant.  On  becoming  a  member  of  the 
church,  he  was  informed  by  its  Rector  that  his  long  connec- 
tion with  an  Evangelical  denomination  rendered  confirmation 
unnecessary.  The  omission  of  confirmation  in  his  case,  hav- 
ing caused  some  discussion  amongst  certain  members  of  the 
church,  he  conferred  upon  the  subject  with  Bishop  Stevens, 
who  advised  him  to  be  confirmed  ;  whereupon  he  expressed 
his  willingness  to  be  confirmed,  and  a  desire  for  that  ordi- 
nance, and  on  the  return  of  the  Bishop,  intends  to  present 
himself  for  confirmation. 

As  to  the  attack  made  upon  two  ladies  of  the  congregation 
on  page  27,  and  also  in  Appendix  D.  we  are  content  to  rest 
the  matter  upon  the  following  letter  from  one  of  the  ladies, 
the  other  being  absent  in  Europe.  It  was  at  the  house  of 
the  writer  that  the  "  meeting  "  referred  to  was  hekl,  and  her 
chai'acter  is  so  well  known  in  Germantown,  and  particularly 
in  Christ  Church,  that  her  word  will  not  be  doubted  by  any 
one,  whose  opinion  is  worth  considering. 


118 

January  15,  1872. 
"At  3'onr  request  I  give  the  names  of  the  members  of  our 

Parish  upon  whom  I  called,  in  company  with  Miss ,  hast 

faU.  The  work  was  undertaken  with  great  reluctance,  but 
we  were  soon  convinced  it  was  a  necessity,  as  we  lound  that 
many  of  our  most  earnest  members  liad  signed  a  paper  circu- 
lated by  friends  of  the  present  Rector,  which  stated  that  it 
Avas  considered  for  the  spiritual  wellare  of  the  Church  that 
he  should  retain  his  position.  Xnowing  that  these  parties 
were  in  full  sympathy  w^ith  the  views  upon  which  Christ 
Church  had  been  founded,  and  hitherto  stood,  we  inquired  if 
they  had  read  the  paper  to  wdiich  their  signatures  were  at- 
tached ;  the  almost  universal  reply  was  "  ?io,  but  they  were 
told  it  was  only  expressive  of  friendly  feeling  towards  Dr. 
Rumney,  and  as  they  had  had  no  personal  diflerence  with 
him,  felt  very  willing  to  give  their  names."  We  explained 
to  them  that  the  Vestry  had  felt  it  their  duty  to  circulate 
another  paper,  simply  because  this  wrong  statement  had  been 
made.  That  though  there  was  no  personal  feeling  against 
the  Rector,  they  were  convinced  his  views  were  not  in  fellow- 
ship with  the  evangelical  party  in  our  Church,  nor  could  we 
continue,  under  his  pastorate,  to  be  a  representative  church 
of  such  views.  In  no  case  did  we  permit  a  signature  to  the 
paper  furnished  us  by  the  Committee  unless  fully  convinced 
it  was  done  under  intelligent  convictions.  In  several  instances 
we  found  persons  who  were  in  full  sjmipmthy  with  us,  unwill- 
ing to  sign  any  paper,  and  as  their  motive  was  a  conscien- 
tious one,  we  immediately  left  them,  with  the  assurance  that 
we  were  entirely  willing  to  leave  the  matter  as  one  which 
the}",  of  course,  must  decide  for  themselves. 

Hoping  this  statement  will  be  satisfactory,  I  remain." 


119 

As  to  the  Sunday  School  statistics  given  on  page  53,  we 
herewith  present  another  table  made  bj  the  same  gentleman, 
and  showing  the  average  actual  attendance  including  Bible 
Classes. 


1865,   .... 

.   375 

1866,   .... 

.   370 

1867,   .... 

.   369 

1868,   .... 

.   337 

1869,   .... 

.   350 

1870,   .... 

.   270 

1871,   .... 

.   260 

We  have  just  received  a  copy  of  the  paper  containing 
signatures  asking  Dr.  Rumney  to  remain,  and  therefore 
have  not  had  time  carefully  to  analj^ze  it,  but  it  appears,  on 
the  face  of  it,  strange  that  101  names  on  that  paper  should 
chance  to  represent  337  members  of  the  congregation,  while 
129  names  on  the  opposite  paper  should  represent  but  173. 
On  page  16  of  our  Statement  it  will  be  seen  that  we  counted 
only  such  members  of  the  congregation  as  were  over  15  years 
of  age.     On  what  basis  did  their  estimate  proceed  ? 

Of  the  129  names  on  the  paper  addressed  to  the  Vestry,  the 
answer  endeavors  to  show  in  its  appendix  that  23  have  been 
withdrawn.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  precise  language 
of  these  persons  is  not  professed  to  be  reported ;  they  proba- 
bly answered  the  questions,  tlxe  precise  bearing  of  which  they 
may  not  have  understood.  We  have  not  called,  nor  do  we 
intend  to  call  upon  those  persons  to  question  them,  they  have 
not  been  cross-examined  here;  and  we  might  reject  their 
whole  testimony.  But  to  save  the  time  of  the  Board  in  examin- 
ing witnesses,  we  will  concede  that  there  have  been  found  28 
of  our  129,  who  on  being  applied  to  by  the  Rector  in  person 
have  in  the  kindness  of  their  hearts,  not  had  the  firmness  to 
tell  him  to  his  face  that  they  desired  him  to  leave  the 
church. 


120 

But  it  will  be  observed,  first,  that  witb  five  or  six  excep- 
tions these  23  are  admitted  to  have  expressly  desired 
that  the  Church  should  continue  as  heretofore  a  "Low 
Church  ;"  and  second,  that  more  than  100  names-remain  in 
unbroken  opposition. 

We  have  felt  compelled  to  make  these  additional  state- 
ments to  vindicate  ourselves  from  the  attacks  made  upon  us 
in  the  Answer  made  on  behalf  of  the  Rector. 

W.  C.  HOUSTON", 
CHAS.  SPENCER, 
W.  B.  WHITNEY, 

Committee. 
J.  W.  Lewis  has  been  absent  from  the  city. 


Statement  of  W.  C.  Houston. 

A  duty  to  myself  and  those  with  whom  I  have  acted, 
compels  me  to  notice  certain  statements  in  the  "  Answer  on 
behalf  of  the  Rector,"  as  presented  to  the  Board. 

Germautown  is  my  legal  place  of  residence,  and  I  have 
only  spent  the  past  few  winters  in  th,e  city. 

I  do  not  recollect  of  saying,  "  I  was  willing  to  vote  for 
any  man  endorsed  by  Dr.  Chi  Ids," — I  did  vote  for  Rev.  Dr. 
Rumney  by  reason  of  the  representations  of  Messrs.  H.  11. 
Houston  and  Crenshaw. 

I  did  not  "leave  Christ  Church  in  1868,"  but  I  attended 
St.  Michael's  for  a  few  Sundays  in  1869,  for  a  reason  which 
the  members  of  Chirst  Church  knew  bad  no  reference  to  the 
church  views  of  Mr.  Atkins,  and  I  did  not  cease  to  -p^y  the 
rent  of  my  pew. 

I  claim  that  my  contributions  to  dificrent  objects  for 
which  collections  were  made,  Avere  in  no  way  connected 
with  the  Chuch,  and  never  heard  of  sucli  contributions  be- 
ing so  claimed  or  credited,  as  are  stated  on  pages  20,  21 
and  22. 


121 

The  parties?  who  furnished  the  information  to  the  Answer, 
well  knew  that  the  collections  have  heen  decreasing  for  two 
3'ears,  and  hence  the  necessity  of  adding  individual  contri- 
buiions  that  bad  never  passed  through  or  had  any  connec- 
tion with  the  church. 

w.  c.  nousTo:!^ 

il/r.  Spenceys  Statement. 

The  letter  of  Joseph  A.  Schaffer,  on  page  40  of  the  Answer 
for  Dr.  Rumney,  refers  to  an  alleged  interview  with  me,  "  a 
few  daj^s  after  the  Easter  election  in  1871,"  and  represents 
me  as  saj'ing,  "  I  have  a  paper  requesting  Dr.  Rumney  to 
resign  his  position  as  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  nine  of  the 
Vestrymen  have  already  signed  the  paper,  and  I  want  you  to 
make  the  tenth."  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  asking  Mr. 
Schafler  to  sign  any  paper ;  and  it  is  certain  that  at  the  time 
referred  to,  no  such  paper  existed.  The  first  paper  request- 
ing Dr.  Rumney 's  resignation  was  not  prepared  until  late  in 
the  month  of  June.  The  deductions  drawn  on  page. 27  of 
the  Answer,  from  this  apocryphal  statement,  may  therefore 
be  regarded  as  unfounded. 

It  is  quite  true  Mr.  j\liskey  and  I  did  call  upon  Mr.  Plojd, 
who  is  probably  "the friend  "  referred  to  hy  Mr.  Schafter,  and 
who  told  us  that  a  certain  gentleman  sustaining  Dr.  Rumney, 
had  been  a  great  friend  to  him,  and  he  was  afraid  if  he  voted 
our  ticket  the  gentleman  would  withdraw  his  friendship.  I 
told  him  that,  if  for  voting  as  his  conscience  dictated,  the 
gentleman  withdrew  his  friendship,  I  would  be  his  friend  to 
an  equal  extent.  I  felt  sure  that  the  gentleman  named  had 
too  much  integrity  of  character  to  withhold  his  friendship 
from  a  man  sim[)ly  for  doing  ^Vhat  he  conceived  to  be  his 
duty. 

I  should  have  much  preferred  to  have  left  these  papers 
unanswered,  feeling  assured  that  no  one  who  knew  me  would 
believe  them,  but  as  they  will  prohably  be  widely  circulated, 
I  have  felt  it  necessary  to  notice  them. 

ClIAS.  SPEXCER. 


122 

Church  Lane,  Germantoicn,  March  4,  1872. 
Edwin  jNL  Lewis,  Esq., 

My  Dear  Sir  : — I  was  mucli  suqiriscd  to  find  in  Dr.  Rum- 
ney's  answer  to  our  statement  jour  note  to  him  of  February 
13th. 

When  Mr.  "W.  C.  Houston  and  I  called  upon  you  to  pro- 
cure your  signature  to  our  petition  asking  Dr.  Eumney  to 
resign,  you  assured  us  that  could  we  give  you  evidence  that 
our  petition  would  induce  Dr.  Kuranoy  to  resign,  you  would 
sign  it.  Therefore,  I  could  uot  see  that  in  my  note  to  Dr. 
Kumnoy,  I  was  taking  undue  liberty  with  ^-our  name  in 
stating  tliat,  although  you  had  not  signed  our  paper,  you 
fully  endorsed  it. 

Very  truly  yours, 

CHAS.  SDElsrCER. 

[Mr.  LeCoutillier  was  absent  from  the  city  at  the  time  the 
answer  was  read.  He  has  not  yet  returned.  This  will 
explain  why  he  has  not  answered  the  aspersions  cast  upon 
him.] 

Mr.  Conarroe,  I  desire  here  and  now  to  correct  the 
assertion  just  made  in  tlie  supplemental  statement  that  no 
inaccuracy  was  admitted  at  the  reading  of  the  original 
statement,  and  that  no  promise  was  made  to  insert  the 
word  "  not."  This  assertion  is  so  directly  contrarj-  to  the 
facts  that  it  cannot  be  allowed  to  pass  unnoticed.  The  lan- 
guage attributed  to  Dr.  Rumney,  was  distinctly  denied  when 
it  was  first  read  before  the  court,  and  it  was  distinctly 
corrected.  There  is  no  doubt  of  the  fact.  I  heard  the  correc- 
tion. Dr.  Rumney  heard  it,  Mr.  II.  H.  Houston  heard  it. 
This  court  can  say  whether  there  was  an  interruption  during 
the  •  reading  of  that  document  and  a  promise  oi  correc- 
tion or  not. 

Rev.  Dr.  Yarnall.     I  recollect  the  circumstance. 


123 

Mr.  Vail.  I  did  not  hear  the  correction,  and  the  jrontle- 
iiian  who  read  the  statement  says  he  did  not  [)rouiise  to  make 
the  correction,  and  that  if  anything  of  that  sort  was  under- 
stood, it  was  a  mistake.  But  I  am  not  going  to  say  it  did 
not  happen  hecause  I  did  not  hear  it. 

Mr-  Conarroe.  There  is  no  doid)t  of  it  at  all.  Xow,  may 
it  please  the  court,  we  have  a  hrief  supplemental  answer, 
on  the  part  of  the  respondent,  which  I  beg  leave  to  read : 

SUPPLEMENTAL  AIv^SWER. 

The  complainants  having  Leen  permitted  to  lay  before  the 
Board  additional  matter  in  explanation  of  their  case,  the 
respondent  claims  leave  to  present  the  following  additional 
facts : 

L  Twenty-five  different  clergymen  were  nominated  for 
the  ofRce  of  Eector  of  Christ  Church,  between  September 
7th,  1869,  and  the  time  of  Dr.  Kumney's  election.  Nine 
Vestry  meetings  were  held,  and  numerous  ballots  were  had, 
and  the  minutes  of  the  Vestry  show  that  only  two  of  the 
twenty-live  could  be  elected. 

XL  Of  the  persons  certifying  that  they  will  be  voters,  and 
how  they  will  vote  at  the  next  election,  R.  B.  Dunning,  H. 
W.  Heiskell,  and  C  P.  Bayard  are  Presbyterians,  and  do 
not  attend  Christ  Church  ;  George  Nugent  is  a  Baptist,  and 
does  not  attend  Christ  Church  ;  and  E.  F.  Shoenberger  is  a 
member  of  St.  Paul's,  Cheltenham,  and  does  not  attend  the 
Church. 

III.  To  show  the  hollowncss  of  the  statement  (p.  8),  that 
"these  people"  (meaning  the  complainants)  "built  the 
Church,  and  for  fifteen  years  maintained  it,"  and  the  impres- 
sion sought  to  be  conveyed  that  they  still  maintain  it,  it  is 
answered : 


124 

1.  That  a  large  majority  of  the  complainants  came  into 
the  Church  long  after  it  was  built,  and  that  they  have  con- 
tributed no  more  in  proportion  for  its  support  than  the 
friends  of  the  Rectcr. 

2.  That  Messrs,  Powers  and  Le  Boutillier,  the  only  two  of 
the  complainants  vvho  contributed  to  the  original  erection, 
received  in  pews  or  scrip,  or  other  money  equivalent,  full 
value  for  the  greater  part  of  their  contributions. 

3.  That  for  some  years  past,  the  pew  rents  have  amounted 
to  about  $4,000  to  §1,200  annuall}^,  while  the  current  expen- 
ses have  been  about  $5,000,  and  a  deficiency  of  about  $1,000 
has  been  usually  collected  by  the  Vestry  from  members  of 
the  parish.  At  the  Vestry  meeting  in  November,  1871,  Mr. 
Charles  Spencer  reported  this  deficiency,  with  a  statement 
that  he  could  devise  no  means  to  raise  the  required  amount. 
Mr.  W.  C.  Houston  moved  that  a  committee  be  appointed 
for  the  purpose.  Messrs.  W.  C.  Houston,  Charles  Spencer, 
and  Charles  Le  Boutillier  were  appointed  such  committee, 
all  of  whom  declined  to  serve.  A  collection  was  afterwards 
made  in  the  Church,  and  $1,012  was  collected.  $1,000  of 
this  amount  was  contributed  by  friends  of  the  Rector, 
namely :  Messrs.  Chas.  Bullock,  M.  S.  Shapleigh,  S.  B. 
Kingston,  S.  K.  Kille,  E.  Bedlock.  F.  Mortimer  Lewis,  E.  A. 
Crenshaw,  H.  H.  Houston,  Madame  Clement,  and  others.  If 
the  entire  balance  was  contributed  by  the  complainants, 
which  is  not  likely,  it  would  give  $42  as  the  contribution  of 
the  nine,  being  an  average  of  $1.66  to  each  complainant. 
This  will  afford  a  fair  idea  of  the  good  faitrli  of  complainants, 
and  of  their  anxiety  to  '•  promote  the  prosperity  of  the 
<^iiurch."  GEO.  M.  COXARROE, 

Of  Counsel  for  the  Rector. 

"We  hereby  certify  that  the  facts  above  set  forth  are  cor- 
rectly stated.  II.  n.  IIOUSTOX, 

S.  B.  KINGSTON", 
JOS.  A.  SCHAEFFER. 


125 


In  the  supplemental  statement  just  read,  llv.  W.  C.  Hous- 
ton, as  a  sort  of  denial  of  certain  facts  stated  in  the  answer 
says:  "  Germantown  is  my  legal  place  of  residence,  and  I 
have  only  spent  the  past  few  winters  in  the  city."  We  have 
nothing  to  do  here  Avith  Mr.  Houston's  legal  place  of  resi- 
dence, with  where  he  may  vote  or  be  assessed,  but  with  his 
ecclesiastical  residence.  I  liappen  to  have  here  a  paper 
filled  up  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Houston,  which  shows 
ijis  ecclesiastical  resideuoe  to  be  in  Philadelphia.  We  offer 
this  paper  in  evidence.     It  is  as  follows:  ^ 

"  The  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  respectfully  requests  that 
the  accompanying  blank  form  may  be  filled  up,  in  order  that  he  may  pre- 
pare a  complete  Parish  Register.  This  paper  may  be  returned  to  him  by 
mail  or  left  with  the  Sexton.  "  TnEODORE  S.  Rumney,  D.  D.,  Rector. 

"  No.  36  Tulpehockeu  St. 
"FAMILY  REGISTER. 
♦'Place'of  Residence,  East  Washington  L:ine,  corner  of  Morton  street. 


NAMES  OF  ALL 

TUE  MEMBEKS 

OF  THK 

FAMILV. 


Their  rela- 
tiiiusljip  to 
th.>H«adof 
tlie  tiimily. 


D,ite  of  Birth 

of  those  now 

under  15 

Bap- 
tized. 

years. 

Con- 
firm- 
ed. 


Com- 
ma ui- 
ca.uts. 


REMA.RKS. 


W.  C.  Houston, 

Mks.  W.  C.  Houston, 

Mr.  and  Mks.  F.  H.  Williams. 

Have  six  children  besides  Mrs.  W. 


All  belong,  to  and  are  communing  Mem. 
bers  of  the  Church  of  the  Atonement. 
(Kev.  Du.  Watson,)  Philadelphia. 
City  residence,  1737  Arch  street. 

W.  C.  H." 

We  also  produce  before  the  Board  the  printed  reports  of 
the  Evangelical  Societies,  from  which  the  statistics  in  tlie 
answer  were  taken,  and  desire  them,  together  with  the  Vestry 
minutes,  which  are  here,  to  be  considered  as  put  in  evidence. 

There  is  one  other  paper  which  we  desire  produced  here, 
namely,  the  original  paper  asking  for  Dr.  Rumney's  resigna- 
tion. This  paper  has  never  been  seen  by  Dr.  Eumney  or  his 
counsel.  It  was  asked  for  last  summer,  and  has  been  repeat- 
edly asked  for  since.  As  it  is  the  paper  on  which  the  Vestry 
partly  base  their  action  in  this  case,  it  should  be  produced. 

[Two  papers  were  then  produced  by  Mr.  Vail,  asking  Dr. 
Eumney  to  resign,  containing  in  all  40  signatures.] 

Mr.  Vail.  There  is  a  third  paper  containing  additional 
signatures  which  I  ought  to  have  produced.  We  thought 
we  hud  uU  three  parts,  but  find  that  we  are  mistaken. 


123 

Mr.  Price.  I  am  requested  to  state  that  Avhen  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Vestry  called  upon  the  Bishop  last  summer,  he 
told  them  that  he  had  written  a  letter  advising  Dr.  Paimney 
to  resign,  that  the  clergj-  of  Germantown  had  united  in  a 
letter  askino-  him  to  withdraw  his  suo-o-estion,  but  that  he 
had  declined  to  do  so. 

We  ask  for  the  production  of  the  Bishop's  letter,  advising 
Dr.  Rumney  to  resign. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  ISTobody  knows  better  than  my  friend,  Mr. 
iPrice,  that  a  notice  to  produce  must  be  given  before  the  trial. 
There  would  have  been  no  difficulty  whatever  about  produc- 
ing that  letter,  had  we  known  it  would  be  called  for.  I  did 
not  happen  to  bring  it  with  me,  and  it  is  too  late  to  call  for 
it  now.    It  was  agreed  that  this  case  should  be  closed  to-day. 

Mr.  Price.  I  understand  then  that  there  is  no  denial  of 
the  letter? 

Mr,  Conarroe.  There  is  no  denial,  whatever ;  but  we  de- 
sire to  state  that  the  Bishop's  first  letter  was  written  in  June 
last,  after  hearing  one  side  only,  and  without  any  notice  to 
Dr.  Pumne3^  When  the  Bishop  was  called  on  by  Dr.  Rum- 
ney's  friends,  about  two  weeks  afterwards,  he  said  that  if  he 
had  known  what  he  then  knew,  he  would  not  have  suggested 
a  resignation.  It  should  be  especially  noted  that  the  letter 
we  printed  in  the  answer,  is  the  final  testimony  of  the 
Bishop  after  hearing  both  sides.  We  thought  it  would  be 
better  for  the  Bishop's  reputation  if  the  first  letter  was  not 
alluded  to  here,  but  our  friends  on  the  other  side  have 
thought  best  to  bring  the  subject  in.  The  letter  of  Septem- 
ber 30th,  is  a  full  answer  to  them. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beasley.  If  the  counsel  are  now  readj'  they 
will  proceed  with  the  argument.  I  will  have  to  observe  to 
the  persons  present  that  perfect  silence  must  be  maintained, 
and  that  there  must  be  no  demonstration  from  any  person 
amongst  the  audience.  If  we  are  annoyed  in  that  way,  we 
shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  asking  all  who  are  not  in  im- 
mediate connection  with  this  case  to  witlidraw  from  the  room. 


ARGUxMENT  OF   AIR.   VAIL. 

AIay  it  please  TLiE  BoARD : — If  a  longer  time  had  been 
afForcled  me  for  preparation,  my  remarks  would  have  been 
more  concise.  The  J3oard  well  knows  that  a  concise  sermon 
or  speech  requires  more  study  and  preparation  than  a  long 
one. 

I  engaged  in  this  cause  with  the  greatest  reluctance.  I 
removed  to  Germantown  last  April,  and  since  that  time  my 
intercourse  with  the  Eector  of  Christ  Church  has  been  of 
the  most  pleasant  character.  I  personally  have  the  highest 
regard  for  him.  A  lew  weeks  after  my  removal,  I  was 
called  upon  by  a  committee  of  the  Rector's  friends  to  sign  a 
petition,  asking  him  not  to  resign.  I  defined,  and  being 
urged,  gave  my  reasons — that  I  found  the  Church  divided  by 
a  controversy  between  the  Rector  and  some  of  the  congrega- 
tion— that  two  tickets  for  the  Vestry  had  been  presented  at 
the  last  election,  and  the  one  opposed  to  the  Rector  had  been 
chosen — that  it  was  not  right  to  ask  the  Rector  to  remain 
in  such  a  state  of  atfairs.  It  was  niy  intention  not  to  sign 
any  paper  for  or  against  the  Rector.  Afterwards,  another 
committee  presented  me  the  petition,  recited  on  page  19  of 
the  A^estry's  Statement.  I  at  first  declined  to  sign  this,  but 
the  argument  was  used  that  it  was  the  duty  of  every  man 
who  had  a  decided  opinion  to  express  it.  After  carefully 
reading  the  petition  and  seeing  that  there  was  nothing  in 
any  part  of  it  that  could  in  an}^  manner  reflect  disagreeably 
on  the  Christian  character  or  standing  of  the  Rector,  I 
signed  it.  I  stand  here  to-day  feeling  that  the  cause  I 
advocate  is  right,  and  that  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
Church  demand  a  dissolution  of  the  connectiou  between  it 
and  tlie  Rector. 

it  has  been  frequently  said  to  me,  that  no  matter  how  the 
case  was  presented,  it  was  prejudged,  because  a  maj(M'ity  of 
the  Board  were  of  the  Church  party  opposed  to  tlie  Vestry. 
I  could  not  believe  this — the  gentlemen  were  placed  here 
as  a  Board  of  Reference  to  consider  this  controversy,  and 
no  matter  what  their  party  predilections  may  be,  or  what 
are  their  jiersonal  feelings,  they  must  decide  it  upon  the 
allegations  and  proof  presented  to  them.  Woe  be  the  day 
in  this  country  if  it  should  ever  come  to  pass  that  a  Demo- 

(127) 


128 

crat  or  lAopul^lican  could  not  obtain  justice  in  a  civil  court, 
because  ibo  judge  on  the  bench  was  of  an  opposite  political 
party. 

JSTow  let  us  consider  tlie  canon  under  which  you  act,  for  it 
all  turns  upon  its'interpretation.     Let  us  look  at  its  history. 

It  is  not  a  new  canon,  although  many  think  so.  It  is  \n 
substance  the  second  and  fourth  canons  of  1804,  and  is  there- 
fore older  than  myself  and  the  majority  of  persons  in  this 
room. 

The  present  proceedings  are  under  and  by  virtue  of  the 
first  five  sections,  and  to  these  we  confine  our  remarks. 

The  General  Convention  of  1804  was  held  in  the  City  of 
^New  York,  from  Tuesday,  September  11th,  to  Tuesday,  Sep- 
tember 18th. 

The  Journal  of  Saturday,  September  15th,  states: — 

"A  memorial  was  presented  from  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  K'ewark,  New  Jersey,  stating  that  a  very  unhappy 
diflference  which  appears  to  threaten  the  very  existence  of 
their  church,  subsists  between  the  Hector  and  the  congrega- 
tion of  said  church,  and  praying  the  Convention  to  devise 
some  means  for  their  relief." 

The  above  memorial  was  referred  to  the  following  com- 
mittee to  report  thereon:  the  Rev.  Dr.  Blackwell,  Rev.  Mr. 
Haskell,  Rev.  Mr.  Brunson,  Rev.  Mr.  Ilobart,  Rev.  Mr. 
Price,  Rev.  Dr.  Kemp,  William  Ogden,  Thomas  Cumpston, 
and  Richard  K.  Heath,  Esqrs. 

On  Monday,  September  17th,  the  Journal  states: 

"The  Committee  on  the  memorial  from  Trinity  Church, 
Newark,  New'  Jersey,  made  report ;  on  motion,  the  report 
was  reconmiitted  to  the  same  committee." 

Further,  on  the  same  day,  it  states: 

"  A  projiosed  canon  respecting  difierences  between  ]\linis- 
ters  and  their  Congregations  was  adopted  and  sent  to  the 
House  of  Bishops  for  their  concurrence." 

The  Journal  of  the  House  of  Bishops  states,  that  on  the 
evening  of  the  same  day — 

"  The  canon  respecting  difierences  between  Ministers  and 
their  Congregations  was  passed  with  an  amendment." 

The  Journal  of  the  House  of  De})utie3  states,  that  on  the 
next  morning,  viz.:  Tuesday,  September  18th,  the  House 
agreed  to  the  amendments. 

The  same  morning,  the  Committee  on  the  ]\femoi'ial  of 
Trinity  Church,  Newark,  made  the  following  report : 


129 

"  The  Committee  on  the  Memorial  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  Xewark,  wliose  re[>ort  was  yesterday  recommitted 
to  them,  made  report,  that  as  this  Ct)nvention  have  passed  a 
canon  })roviding  for  such  cases  as  that  of  the  A'estry  of  said 
church,  the  committee  think  it  unnecessary  that  tliis  House 
shoukl  go  into  an  investigation  of  the  aii'air." 

This  Canon  so  enacted  was  Canon  IV  of  the  Convention 
of  1804,  and  was  in  the  following  words  : 
"  Respecting   differences   between    Ministers   and   their  Congre- 
gations. 

"In  cases  of  controversy^  between  Ministers  who  now  or 
may  hereafter  hold  the  rectorship  of  churciies  or  parishes, 
which  controversies  are  of  such  a  nature  as  cannot  be  settled 
by  themselves,  the  parties,  or  either  of  them,  shall  make  ap- 
plication to  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  or,  in  c<ase  there  be  no 
Bishop,  to  the  Convention  of  the  State. 

"  And  if  it  appear  to  the  Bishop  and  his  Presbyters,  or  if 
there  be  no  Bishop,  to  the  Convention  or  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee of  the  Diocese  or  State  ;  if  the  authority  should  be 
committed  to  them  by  the  Convention  that  the  controversy 
has  proceeded  to  such  length,  as  to  preclude  all  hope  of  its 
favorable  termination,  and  that  a  dissolution  of  the  connec- 
tion which  exists  between  them  is  indispensal)]y  necessary  to 
restore  the  peace  and  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  church; 
the  Bishop  and  his  Presbyters,  or,  if  there  be  no  Bishop, 
tiie  Convention,  or  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese 
or  State,  if  the  authority  should  be  committed  to  them  by  the 
Convention,  shall  recommend  to  such  ministers  to  relinquish 
their  titles  to  their  rectorship  on  such  conditions  as  may 
appear  reasonable  and  projter  to  the  Bishop  and  his  Presby- 
ters ;  or,  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  to  the  Convention  or  Stand- 
ing Committee  of  the  Diocese  or  State,  if  the  authority  should 
be  committed  to  them  by  the  Convention. 

"  And  if  such  Rectors  or  congregations  refuse  to  comply 
with  such  reconmiendation,  the  Bishop  and  his  Presbyters, 
or,  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  the  Convention  or  the  Standing 
Committee  of  the  Diocese  or  State,  if  the  authority  should 
be  conmiitted  to  them  by  the  Convention,  with  the  aid  and 
consent  of  a  Bishop,  may  at  their  discretion  proceed  accord- 
ing to  the  canons  of  the  church,  to  suspend  the  former  from 
the  exercise  of  any  ministerial  duties  within  the  Diocese  or 
State;  and  prohibit  the  latter  from  a  seat  in  the  Convention 
until  they  retract  such  refusal,  and  submit  to  the  terms  of 
9 


130 

the  recommenflation ;  and  any  minister  so  snspended  shall 
not  lie  permitted  daring  his  suspension  to  exercise  any  minis- 
terial duties  in  any  other  Diocese  or  State.  This  canon  shall 
apply  also  to  the  cases  of  associated  Rectors  and  assistant 
ministers  and  their  congregations." 

This,  with  a  few  verbal  alterations,  is  Canon  XXXII.  of 
1808,  and  Canon  XXXIV.  of  1832.  This  last  provides  that 
all  the  Presbyters  of  the  Diocese  shall  be  summoned. 

This  canon  remained  until  1859,  when  it  was  repealed.  I 
believe  it  was  not  intended  to  absolutely  do  away  with  it 
but  to  substitute  another  for  it.  It  was  found  inconvenient 
if  not  impossible  to  convene  all  the  Presbyters  of  one  of  our 
large  dioceses. 

In  1871  it  was  found  necessary  to  re-enact  this  canon  in 
principle.  The  present  canon,  under  and  by  virtue  of  which 
you  are  now  sitting,  is  the  fourth  of  18u4  amended.  The 
following  is  the  text  of  Canon  IV.  of  1871  : 

[Sections  VI.,  VII.  and  VIII.  are  in  principle  the  same 
as  Canon  II.  of  1804.     They  were  not  repealed  in  T859.] 


CAXOX    IV. 

Of  differences  hetweem.  Ministers  and  their  Congregations^  and 
of  the  Dissolidion  of  a  Pastoral  Connection. 

§  I.  In  case  of  a  controversy  between  any  Rector  or 
Assistant  Minister  of  any  Church  or  Parish  and  the  Vestry 
or  congregation  of  such  Church  or  Parish  which  cannot  be 
settled  by  themselves,  the  parties,  or  either  of  them,  may 
make  application  to  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  who  shall 
thereupon  notify  each  of  the  contesting  parties  to  furnish 
him  with  the  names  of  three  Presbyters  of  the  Diocese.  The 
Bishop  shall  add  to  them  the  names  of  three  other  Presby- 
ters, and  the  whole  number  shall  then  be  reduced  to  live  by 
striking  off  the  names  alternately  by  each  of  the  contesting 
parties'.  Should  either  party  refuse  or  neglect  to  name  three 
l*resbyters  or  to  strike  from  the  list  as  aforesaid,  the  Bishop 
shall  act  for  the  parties  so  refusing  or  neglecting.  And  in 
all  the  proceedings  aforesaid  the  Vestry  or  congregation,  as 
the  case  may  be,  shall  be  represented  by  some  layman  of 
their  number  duly  selected  by  them  for  the  purpose.  Pro- 
vided^ that  the  party  or  parties  applying  as  above  shall  first 


131 

give  tlie  Tlishop  sntisfactory  assurance  of  compliance  with 
wliateviT  may  bo  reqiiircd  of  them  as  the  final  issue  of  such 
proceedings. 

§  II.  The  five  Presbyters  tlius  designated  shall  constitute 
a  Board  of  KeCerence  to  consider  such  controversy,  and  if 
after  hearing  such  allegations  and  proofs  as  the  parties  may 
submit,  a  majority  of  the  Presbyters  shall  be  of  opinion  that 
there  is  no  hojio  of  a  favorable  termination  of  such  contro- 
versy, and  that  a  dissohition  of  the  connection  between  such 
Rector  or  Assistant  Minister  and  his  parish  or  congregation 
is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  promote 
its  prosperity,  such  Trcsbyters  shall  recommend  to  the  Bishop 
that  such  minister  shall  be  required  to  relinquish  liis  co/mec- 
tion  with  such  church  or  Parish,  on  such  conditions  as  may 
appear  to  thenj  proper  and  reasonable. 

§  III.  If  any  Rector  or  Assistant  Minister  shall  refuse  to 
comply  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Bishop  and  Presby- 
ters, tlie  Bishop  shall  proceed  to  forbid  him  the  exercise  of 
any  ministerial  functions  within  the  Diocese  until  he  shall 
retract  his  refusal,  or  if  the  Vestry  or  Congregation  sliall 
refuse  to  comply  with  any  such  recommendation,  they  shall 
not  be  allowed  any  representation  in  the  JJiocesan  Conven- 
tion until  they  shall  have  retracted  their  refusal. 

§  IV.  When  there  is  no  Bishop,  the  President  of  the 
Standing  Committee  of  the  Biocese  shall  perform  all  the 
duties  herein  allotted  to  the  Bishop:  Provided^  that  he  shall 
not  exercise  any  power  under  the  preceding  third  section 
without  the  aid  and  consent  of  some  Bishop  of  this  Church. 

§  V.  The  preceding  sections  of  this  Canon  shall  not  be 
obligatory  upon  any  Diocese  which  has  made,  or  shall  here- 
after make,  provision  by  Canon,  upon  this  subject. 

§  VI.  In  case  a  minister,  who  has  been  regularly  insti- 
tuted and  settled  in  a  parish  or  church,  be  dismissed  bj^  such 
parish  or  church  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Authority  of  the  Diocese,  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  such 
parish  or  cliurch  shall  have  no  right  to  a  representation  in 
the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  until  they  liave  made  such 
satisfaction  as  the  Convention  may  require.  But  the  minis- 
ter thus  dismissed  shall  retain  his  right  to  a  seat  in  the 
Convention,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Authority  of  the  diocese.  And  no  minister  shall  leave  his 
congregation  against  their  will,  without  the  concurrence -of 
the  Ecclesiastical  Authority  aforesaid  ;  and  if  he  shall  leave 


132 

them  without  snch  concurrence,  he  shall  not  be  allowed  to 
take  his  seat  in  any  Convention  of  this  Church,  or  he  eligible 
into  any  church  or  parish  until  he  shall  have  made  such 
satisfaction  as  the  Ecclesiastical  Authority  of  the  diocese 
may  require ;  but  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  such  parish 
or  church  shall  not  be  thereby  deprived  of  its  right  to  a 
re])rcsentation  in  the  Convention  of  the  diocese. 

§  VII.  In  case  of  the  regular  and  canonical  dissolution 
of  the  connection  between  a  minister  and  his  congregation, 
the  Bishop,  or  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee, shall  direct  the  Secretary  of  the  Con  venation  to 
record  the  same.  But  if  the  dissolution  of  the  connection 
between  a  minister  and  his  congregation  be  not  reirular  or 
canonical,  the  Bishop  or  Standing  Conmiittce  shall  lay  the 
same  before  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  in  order  that  the 
above-mentioned  penalties  may  take  effect. 

§  VIII.  This  Canon  sball  not  be  obligatory  in  those  Dio- 
ceses with  whose  Canon  laws  or  charter  it  may  interfere. 

Under  the  Canon  of  1804  a  special  convention  of  New 
Jersey  was  held  in  December,  1801,  and  by  virtue  of  its 
provisions  the  connections  between  the  Rector  and  Parish 
was  dissolved. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  origin  of  this  canon  Avas  to 
meet  a  particular  case,  viz. :  to  enable  the  Vestry  of  Trinity 
Church,  Newark,  New  Jersey,  to  be  relieved  from  their 
Rector. 

This  Rector  was  Rev.  Uzal  Ogden,  D.  D.  It  will  be  well 
for  us  to  consider  what  kind  of  a  man  he  was,  and  what 
was  his  standing  in  the  church. 

Bishop  White,  in  his  memoirs,  says,  he  "  was  possessed  of 
ap})arent  zeal  and  unexceptional  in  his  moral  conduct." 

Dr.  Ogden  was  a  delegate  in  attendance  at  this  very  con- 
vention. 

He  had  been  a  delegate  to  the  General  Conventions  of 
1785,  1786,  1780,  1792,^1799  and  18iJl. 

Nor  was  he  an  unimportant  mend^er  of  these  Conventions. 
We  find  him  placed  on  important  committees.  In  1781,  on 
the  committee  to  take  into  consideration  the  letters  and 
papers  from  the  Arch-bishops  of  England. 

In  1789,  on  the  committee  to  prepare  a  body  of  canons  for 
the  government  of  the  church. 

In  1789  he  was  one  of  those  deputed  to  present  an  en- 
grossed address  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 


133 

In  1792  the  General  Convention  appointed  a  standing 
committee,  and  chose  him  as  one  of  its  members. 

And  yet,  in  the  case  of  a  minister  so  distins^uished,  and 
against  whose  moral  character  no  charge-^  could  be  made, 
the  General  Convention  of  our  Church  felt  it  their  duty  to 
interfere  on  behalf  of  the  laitj. 

The  Rev.  Cave  Jones  was  Secretary  of  the  House  of 
Bishops  in  the  General  Convention  of  1^04. 

In  1811,  he  and  the  Vestry  of  the  Church,  of  which  he 
was  assistant  minister,  had  a  controversy  arising  out  of  a 
publication  entitled,  "A  Solemn  Appeal  to  the  Church." 
The  Vestry,  by  means  of  this  canon,  were  relieved. 

In  reference  to  the  case  of  Dr.  Jarvis,  referred  to  by  Rev. 
Dr.  Hare  (see  Journal  of  General  Convention,  page  521),  I 
have  not  been  able,  as  j'et,  to  find  any  record.  From  con- 
versations had  with  gentlemen,  who  were  then  living,  and 
who  have  some  recollections  of  the  facts,  I  am  enabled  to 
make  the  following  statement :  Dr.  Jarvis  was  a  man  emi- 
nent in  the  Church,  a  son  of  Dishop  Jarvis.  He  was  Rector 
of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Boston,  at  that  time  one  of  the  wealth- 
iest churches  in  our  country.  He  held  views  more  Hio;h 
Church  than  those  of  the  congregation :  there  was  also  some 
dispute  about  his  wife.  Bishop  Griswold  convened  the 
Presljyters  of  the  Diocese,  and  they  recommended  a  separa- 
tion, on  condition  of  the  Church  paying  to  him  a  large  sum 
of  money. 

The  canon  was  also  applied  in  the  case  of  Rev.  ISTorman 
Kash,  in  New  Jersey,  in  the  year  18-31. 

It  was  also  applied  in  February,  1849,  to  a  case  in  Ohio. 
The  Rector  was  recommended  to  resign,  upon  the  condition 
that  his  salary  should  be  paid  to  the  date  of  the  sitting  of 
the  Council.     The  Rector  did  resign. 

These  are  all  the  cases  of  which  I  have  been  able  to  find 
any  record,  and  the  result  in  all  was  the  same. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  provisions  of  Canon  IV.,  of  1871. 

Section  I.  provides  when  and  how  an  application  may  be 
made,  and  how  the  Presbyters  are  selected.  As  all  this 
has  been  done  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  consider  it. 

Nor  is  it  necessary  here  to  consider  Sections  III.  and  IV. 
They  merely  provide  the  manner  in  which  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Board  of  Reference  shall  be  enforced. 

[Section  II.  is  the  important  one  to  be  considered.  In  it, 
and  it  only,  are  contained  all  your  powers  and  duties. 


134 

You  are  constituted  "  a  Board  of  Rkferexce  to  consider 
such  controversy.^'' 

You  are  not  convened  to  try  the  Rector  or  the  Vestry,  for 
the  canon  "  contemplates  no  charges  against  a  niinister  and 
no  trial  tor  oticnces."  If  any  otfences  are  charged,  he  must 
he  [ipescnted  and  tried  nnder  another  canon,  and  hy  another 
tribunal,  in  a  different  mode. 

I  pray  you  keep  this  distinctly  in  mind. 

You  are  to  consider  such  controversy.  "  Wehster  defines 
controversy  thus:  '•  The  expression  or  maintenance  of  feelings, 
0|)inions  or  course  of  action  contrary'  to,  or  discordant  with, 
those  of  others;  contention,  dispute,  debate,  dissension.'  As 
Hon.  Murray  Hoffman  well  remarks, — 'There  are  sometimes 
occasions  of  disagreement  which,  without  much  faidt  on 
either  side,  poison-the  connection  and  destroy  its  henetits.'" 
Or,  as  the  committee  of  1804  reported,  "that  the  usefulness 
of  a  minister  essentially  depends  on  the  preservation  of  har- 
mony between  him  and  his  congregation,  and  that  the  cause 
of  religion  and  prosj)erity  of  the  Uhurch  must  be  materially 
affected,  while  disputes  and  discontents  continue  in  the 
Church." 

As  such  Board  of  Reference,  it  provides  "that,  if,  after 
hearing  such  allegations  and  proofs,  the  parties  ma}'  sul)mit, 
a  majority  of  the  Presbyters  shall  be  opinion  that  there  is 
no  hope  of  a  favorable  termination  of  such  controversy, 
then,"  &c.,  &c. 

The  words  of  the  old  Canon  are,  "That  the  controversy 
Avas  proceeded  to  such  lengths  as  to  preclude  all  hope  of  its 
favorable  termination." 

This  is  the  first  and  main  point  which  you  must  decide. 
If  you  are  convinced  that  there  is  a  ho[)e  of  a  favorable 
termination,  you  distinctly  so  say,  and  then  the  application 
of  the  Vestry  falls,  and  you,  as  a  Board,  adjourn  sine  die. 

You  then  liave  no  power  to  impose  or  recommend  any 
conditions  whatever.  Any  recommendations  3-ou  might 
then  make  Avould  not  bind  either  Eector  or  Vestry, 
Time  only  must  show  whether  your  decision  is  correct. 

It  may  he  said  that  there  is  a  clause  in  Section  I.  which 
binds  tlie  Vestry  to  comply  Avith  anything  your  Board  may 
choose  to  recommend.  This  clause  is  in  the  following 
words,  "  Provided.,  'fhat  the  party  or  parties,  applying  as 
above,  shall   first   give   the   Bishop    satisfactory   assurance 


135 

of  compliance  Avith  whatever  may  be  required  of  tlicm,  as 
the  final  issue  of  such  proceedings." 

This  clause  was  not  in  the  Canon  as  orio-inally  enacted  by 
the  House  of  Deputies.  It  was  inserted  as  afi  aniendnient 
by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  theu  concurred  in  by  the 
House  of  Deputies. 

Perhaps  it  was  inserted  to  meet  an  objection  stated  by 
Dr.  Hawks,  in  his  "Constitutions  and  Canons,"  page  318. 
He  says:  "This  is  an  instance,  remarkal)le  in  the  leo-islation 
"of  our  Church,  for  one  feature;  it  allows  to  the  Clergj/  as 
"a  c-/a6'5,  the  privilege  of  determining,  as  against  the  laity, 
"when  a  brother  clergyman  has  been  unjustly  or  harshly 
"dealt  with  by  his  congregation;  and  they  have  infixing 
"the  terms  of  separation,  the  power  which  in  some  instances 
"they  have  exercised,  of  decreeing  that  the  congregation 
"shall  pay  to  the  clergyman  a  sum  of  money,  as  a  compen- 
"sation  to  him,  for  the  pecuniary  loss  he  sustains  in  being 
"driven  to  a  separation  by  their  conduct.  The- law  is,  how- 
"ever,  little  better  than  a  dead  letter;  for  if  the  congrega- 
"  tion  should  refuse  to  pay  the  money  thus  awarded,  they 
"are  visited  with  no  other  penalty  than  that  of  being 
"refused  a  representation  in  Convention;  and  to  many  tli.s 
"is  no  penalty  at  all."  By  this  clause  they  are  bound  in 
honor  to  pay  such  sum. 

The  Vestry  are  bound  to  comply  with  whatever  may  be 
legally  required  of  them  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  Canon. 
Section  H.  states  as  plainly  as  is  possible  to  be  stated  in 
the  English  language,  that  the  Board  or  a  majority  of 
them,  shall  recommend,  &c.,  on  such  conditions,  &c. ,  if  they 
shall  be  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  hope  of  a  favorable  ter- 
mination, &c.  Nothing  is  said  that  they  shall  make  any 
reconnnen(hition,  &c.,  if  they  lind  there  is  a  hope  of  a  favor- 
able termination. 

If  you  are  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  reasonable  hope  of 
a  favorable  termination  of  the  controversy,  you  must  then 
consider  whether  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between 
the  Kector  and  the  Parish  is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace 
of  the  Church  and  promote  its  prosperity  But  I  cannot 
conceive  that  any  body  of  intelligent  men  can  decide  that 
the  peace  of  a  church  can  be  restored  and  its  prosperity 
]»romoted,  b}'  keeping  together  a  Rector  and  Vestry  between 
whom  there  is  such  a  controversy,  that  there  is  no  reason- 
able hope  of  a  favorable  termination.     No  Board  has  ever 


136 

said  so,  and  I  trnst  never  will.  Thorofore,  the  first  point, 
viz.:  the  reasonable  liope  of  a  favorable  termination  of  the 
controversy,  is  the  main  question  of  the  case.  This  is  a 
question  of  fa'ct,  which  you  must  determine  as  a  sworn  jury 
would  do  in  a  court  of  justice,  upon  hearing  the  allegations 
and  the  proofs. 

If  you  find  these  two  points  ailirmativel}^,  then  and  then 
only,  the  Canon  gives  you  power  to  give  a  recommencha- 
tion,  and  impose  conditions.  You  have  the  power  in  that 
case  to  impose  such  conditions  as  may  appear  to  you  proper 
and  reasonable. 

I  will  now  answer  some  arguments  that  may  be  raised  in 
this  case.  One  is  concerning  the  indissolubility  of  the  con- 
nection between  a  Rector  and  his  Parish.  I  have  heard  it 
compared  to  the  connection  between  a  husband  and  wife. 
Now  let  us  carry  tliis  out  to  a  logical  conclusion.  If  a 
husband  sees  a  handsomer  or  wealthier  lady,  he  cannot  ask 
the  Bishop  to  interfere  so  that  he  may  be  allowed  to  leave 
his  wife,  and  take  the  handsome  or  wealthier  lady.  •  lie  is 
bound  to  stay  with  his  wife,  to  love  and  cherish  her  to  her 
life's  end.  Is  that  the  case  between  a  Rector  and  his 
Parish?  I  think  there  are  two  or  three  gentlemen  in  3'our 
Board  who  have  been  in  but  one  Farisli,  but  the  others 
have  not.  Very  few  clergymen  in  Philadelphia  have  not 
changed  parishes.  They  have  doubtless  seen  excellent 
reason — their  sphere  of  iniluence  has  been  enlarged,  they 
have  been  enabled  to  do  more  and  better  work  in  a  larger 
and  wider  field.  But  if  it  is  to  be  compared  to  the  con- 
nection between  man  and  wife,  they  have  done  entirely 
wrong. 

When  a  man  takes  a  wife,  he  takes  her  for  better  or 
worse  — sometimes  she  is  "  all  worse  and  no  better."  If  a 
clergyman  has  taken  a  Parish,  and  he  finds  it  "all  worse"  is 
he  bound  to  stick  to  it  all  his  life? 

But  I  will  refer  to  an  authority  recognized  by  every 
Protestant  Episcopal  Churchman  of  the  Diocese — our  late 
lamented  Diocesan,  Bishop  Potter,  had  not  that  idea.  In 
Bishop  Howe's  life  of  Bishop  Potter,  on  pages  191,  192,  and 
193,  you  will  find  two  letters  to  two  members  of  difi'erent 
Vestries.  He  rebukes  the  Vestries  sharply  for  their  treat- 
ment of  their  Rectors,  but  in  both  recommends  that  the 
Rector  shall  resign. 


137 

{Mv.  Villi  read  the  letter.) 

But  tlie  greatest  ar<z;ument  is  this:  No  matter  what  may 
be  the  iiulividnal  opinion  of  men,  when  the  Chnreh  in  its 
assembled  wisdom  has  seen  fit  to  decree  a  law,  it  is  onr  dnty 
to  carry  it  ont.  The  Church  has  decreed  by  its  canon,  that 
there  may,  and  in  some  instances  there  shall  be  a  dissolution 
of  the  connection  between  the  Rector  and  the  Parish.  It 
is  not  such  a  sacred  tie  that  it  never  can  be  broken.  This 
is  not  the  Church  of  Enrrland,  but  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

I  now  enter  upon  a  branch  of  the  case  that  I  would 
prefer  to  avoid.  In  making  my  comments  I  shall  endeavor 
to  express  myself  without  acrimony.  If  I  make  any  mis- 
statements it  will  be  unintentional,  and  I  ask  my  friends  on 
the  other  side  to  interrupt  and  correct  me. 

First.  Is  there  a  controversy  ?  I  would  simply  refer  you 
to  page  9  of  the  Vestry's  kStatement,  containing  the  circular 
issued  April  7th,  1871,  by  two  excellent  gentlemen  of  the 
Parish  who  are  not  complainants  in  this  cause,  and  to  the 
letter  addressed  to  the  Pector,  May  22d,  1871,  see  page  11  of 
("Statement.  Then  read  the  answer  of  my  friends  on  the  other 
side.  I  ask  you,  do  you  not  believe  that  there  is  a  contro- 
versy existing  in  that  Church  ? 

How  did  it  arise  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  go  into  the  details  of 
this.  On  the  tirst  page  of  the  Vestry's  Statement  there  is  a 
narrative  of  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  signed  by  seven 
of  the  surviving  corporators.  In  the  answer  on  behalt  of  the 
Rector  there  is  on  this  subject,  a  long  letter  from  one  gentle- 
inaji  and  a  short  letter  from  another,  but  neither  controverts 
the  fact  stated  in  the  narrative  that  it  was  originated  and 
built  by  the  Low  Church  party.  Three  of  you,  gentlemen, 
were  Presl)yters  of  this  P)iocese  at  the  time  Christ  Church 
was  founded,  and  j^ou  know  the  fact.  The  other  two  of  \-ou 
liave  been  in  this  Diocese  long  enough  to  know  its  status. 

But  there  is  a  statement  made  in  that  long  letter  Avliich  I 
would  not  liave  noticed,  but  that  iny  friends  incorporated  it 
in  their  answer  (pages  6  &  7).  It  is  article  11.  of  the  Charter 
of  Christ  Church.  Every  gentleman  on  that  Board  knows 
that  this  article  is  in  every  church  charter  of  the  Diocese  of 
I'eimsylvania.  It  is  prescribed  by  the  Convention.  But, 
say  the  gentlemen,  how  can  you  assert  that  this  Church 
which  expressly  acknowledges  itself  to  be  a  member  of  and 


138 

to  belong  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  &c.,  belongs  to 
the  "  Low  Ohiirch  part3^" 

Do  they  mean  to  assert  that  there  are  no  parties  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ? 

Do  they  mean  to  assert  that  there  is  not  a  Tlepnblicau 
part}^  and  a  Democratic  partv  in  our  country?  Tliat  in 
former  times  there  was  not  a  Whig  party^,  a  Free  Soil  party, 
and  a  Democratic  party?  Yet  each  of  these  parties  acknowl- 
edged itself  to  be  a  member  of  the  same  country,  acceded  to, 
recognized  and  adopted  the  same  Constitution  and  laws. 
When  my  friend,  Mr.  Conarroc,  and  I  were  admitted  to  the 
Bar,  we  took  an  oath  to  sustain  and  su[)port  the  same  Con- 
stitution, and  yet  he  and  I  are  as  wide  apart  in  our  i)()litical 
views  as  we  are  in  our  Church  views.  Everybody  belongs 
to  one  of  the  two  great  political  parties.  He  belongs  to  one 
and  I  to  another.  He  belongs  to  one  party  in  the  Church 
and  I  to  another.     We  both  are  honest  in  our  convictions. 

It  is  childish  to  say  that  there  are  no  parties  in  the  Pro- 
testant Epi'^copal  Church.  I  assert  it  boldly  that  if  two  par- 
ties were  not  permitted  in  the  Episcopal  Church  it  could  not 
hold  together.  Another  denomination  of  our  countr}^  under- 
took to  allov/  no  parties,  and  the  result  was  division  into 
Old  School  and  New  School.  They  have  come  together 
again,  but  if  they  wish  to  remain  united  they  must  allow 
freedom  of  thought  and  expression. 

The  Orthodox  Friends  have  two  parties  in  their  Society. 
The  Lutherans  have  a  High  Church  party  and  a  Low  Church 
party,  so  have  the  German  Reformed. 

But  I  will  give  an  authority  that  will  certainly  be  recog- 
nized by  my  friends  on  the  other  side.  It  is  one  who  is  not 
considered  an  extreme  partisan   by  any  one — Bishop  Howe. 

In  his  excellent  life  of  Bishop  Potter,  on  page  104,  he 
speaks  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania  in  18::9,  that  the 
parties  were  then  so  evenly  balanced  that  Bishop  Onderdonk 
was  elected  over  Bishop  Meade  by  oidy  one  majority.  "  He 
8a3's  that  in  1845,  "  the  saine  parties  existed  in  tlie  same  rela- 
tive strength."  On  page  106,  he  speaks  of  that  blessed  man, 
who  is  now  before  the  throne  of  God,  Alonzo  Potter,  and 
calls  him  "a  Low  Churchman.^'  That  is  horrible.  "He  was 
a  Low  Churchman  indeed,  but  no  partisan  ;  an  earnest  Evan- 
gelical Christian,"  and  the  words  that  were  sneered  at  "an 
earnest  Evangelical  Christian,  but  no  self  righteous  and 
proscriptive  zealot." 


139 

I  say  that  the  idea  "that  there  are  no  parties  in  the 
church,"  is  a  humhug.  There  are  parties,  and  tliey  must  be 
recognized,  but  they  must  be  kept  within  jiropcr  limits.  A 
party  man  must  not  allow  his  zeal  to  run  alioad  of  his 
knowledge,  and  must  be  willing  to  allow  other  [jersons  the 
privilege  of  thinking  for  tlieniselves.  I  have  decided  party 
views — you  may  have  other  views  and  yet  we  ai'c  friends, 
but  we  a£i;roe  to  diit'er. 

When  Bishop  I'otter  came  to  this  Diocese  he  asked  coun- 
sel of  a  gentleman,  who,  I  suppose  they  will  say,  he  bad  no 
right  to  go  to,  because  he  did  not  belong  to  the  Episcopal 
Church — but  be  belonged  to  the  Church  of  God — liev^  l)r. 
!N"ott.  He  asked  some  advice  when  coming  into  this  Dio- 
cese, Some  of  you  can  recall  the  troul)le  that  was  in  this 
Diocese  at  that  time.  Amongst  other  things,  he  says  on 
page  129,  "  wdiere  there  are  party  lines  drawn  in  a  cburch, 
and  especially  where  those  linos  are  understcwd  to  be  the 
boundary  lines  of  great  i»riuciplcs,  no  man  holding  an  import- 
ant station  can  maintain  a  perfect  state  of  neutrality,  nor  can 
he  assume  to  do  it,  without  eventually  losing  the  respect  of 
both  parties  and  of  the  community  itself;  for  it  is  natural 
to  respect  men  ditfering  from  us  in  principles  more  than  men 
who  are  understood  to  have  no  principles  at  all.  But 
though  a  state  of  perfect  neutrality  is  not  to  be  atteni[)ted, 
and  cannot  be  maintained,  still,  a  man  having  his  own  prin- 
ciples and  preferences  nuiy  be  a  man  of  candor  and  liberality, 
and  have  brotherly  kindness  towards  them  that  diifcr  from 
him.-"' 

In  their  answer  to  the  Yestr^^'s  Statement,  my  friends  on 
the  other  side  have  undertaken  to  show  that  Christ  (burch 
was  not  originated  and  built  by  persons  wdio  belonged  to  the 
Low  Cburch  i)arty  of  the  Protestant  Episco])al  Clmrcli.  It 
is  an  attem])t  to  show  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a 
Low  Church  party  in  the  Church.  Bishops  Howe  and 
Potter  differ  with  them — so  do  you,  and  so  does  every  man 
that  really  thinks  about  it.  Bishop  Stevens  recognizes  it  in 
his  letter  to  Dr.  Runmey  (see  i)age  1-1  of  the  answer),  lie 
says  in  a  quiet  way,  "You  have  assured  me  again  and  again 
that  your  sympathies  were  with  tlie  gnicral  doctrines  and 
policy  of  that  class  of  men  with  whicli  Clirist  Churcli  has 
usually  been  identitied."  Mark  it.  Bishop  Stevens  under- 
stood that  the  class  of  men  with  which  Clirist  Church  lias 
usually  been  identitied,  held  certain  doctrines  and  policy.    la 


140 

there  a  Presb3'ter  or  Layman  who  has  ever  heard  of  Christ 
Church,  that  does  not  know  which  party  it  has  hean  identi- 
fied with,  and  when  the  vote  was  taken  which  side  it  could 
he  counted  on?  It  must  be  recognized  that  Christ  Church, 
Germaiitown,  was  founded  aud  built  by  members  of  the 
Low  Cliurch  party  for  a  home  for  themselves.  Wlien  you 
place  men  liolding  dilferent  views,  in  the  same  building,  and 
force  them  to  remain  together  there  will  be  a  controversy. 
Each  party  should  have  church  homes  of  their  own.  Gentle- 
men of  different  parties  can  meet  each  other  and  be  friendly, 
but  they  will  not  continue  so  if  they  are  shut  up  in  the  same 
church  building. 

Ciirist  Church  is  the  only  one  in  that  part  of  German- 
town  which  belongs  to  that  branch  of  the  church. 

As  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Vestry  meeting  at  which  Dr. 
Ruraney  was  elected,  I  shall  say  but  little.  It  is  an  unpleas- 
ant thing.  You  have  the  statements  of  the  gentlemen  of 
both  sides  before  you — all  of  them  gentlemen  of  the  highest 
character,  gentlemen  of  standing  and  respectability  in  this 
community,  and  3'et  they  differ  widely  as  to  their  proceed- 
ings. Yet  they  probably  all  believe  that  what  they  say  is 
strictly  true.  You  have  heard  this  afternoon  how  persons 
honestl}^  differ  about  things  happening  only  a  few  days  ago. 
YoQ  must  know  how  difficult  it  is  for  witnesses  to  recollect 
precisely,  things  that  happened  two  years  ago.  A  gentleman 
on  one  s  cle  distinctly  and  positively  states  he  did  ask  cer- 
tain questions  in  a  certain  way,  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
say  he  did  not  so  ask  them.     You  must  decide. 

But  there  is  one  thing  certain,  the  gentlemen  of  the  Ves- 
try, who  are  here  before  you  to-day,  did  believe  that  they 
were  electing  a  Rector  in  sym[)athy  with  their  views;  that 
he  was  a  Low  Churchman.  That  you  cannot  doubt.  They 
would  not  have  voted  for  him  unless  they  had  thought  so. 
How  oi-  why  they  thought  so  is  not  for  you  to  decide.  That 
they  did  tliink  so  you  must  admit. 

jS'ow  gentlemen,  in  this  answer,  all  through,  in  the  corre- 
spondence wliicii  you  have  before  you,  throwing  aside  the 
Btatenicnts  of  the  Vestry,  is  there  a  line  in  the  answer,  or  in 
any  part  of  the  correspondence  in  which  the  Rector  himself, 
or  any  one  for  him,  asserts  that  he  holds  Low  Church  views, 
or  sympathizes  with  the  Low  Church  party?  lie,  sir,  is  a 
man  of  honor,  and  he  nowhere  asserts  it.  I  beg  your  atten- 
tion to  that,     lie  is  a  man  that  would  scorn  to  say  a  thing 


141 

he  (lid  not  lielicve,  and  he  takes  the  occasion  nowhere — no- 
where in  the  answer,  nowhere  in  any  of  the  correspondence — 
to  say,  "I  do  sympathize  with  the  Low  Church  party."  On 
the  contrary,  when  Bishop  Stevens  writes  the  letter  to  him 
of  September  30th,  1871,  and  in  the  kindness  of  his  heart, 
says,  "You  have  assured  me  that  your  sympathies  were 
with  the  general  doctrines  and  policy  of  that  chiss  of  men 
with  which  Christ  Church  has  usually  been  identified"— he 
answers  it  immediately — he  does  not  wish  to  rest  under  that 
impression — and  very  properly.  I  say  it  to  his  honor  and 
credit,  and  he  says,  "  By  this  I  understand  you  7iot  to  mean 
that  I  sympathize  with  anj^  v/ho  would  destroy  the  unity  of 
the  church,  or  on  either  side  disclaim  or  reject  her  authority 
and  long  established  customs  and  usages." 

He  either  means  that  the  Vestry  of  Christ  Church  are  of 
that  chiss,  or  that  he  does  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  sym- 
pathizing with  them  at  all.  As  you  have  seen,  there  is  but 
one  gentleman  who  has  been  singled  out  and  selected  to 
have  the  vial  of  wrath  heaped  upon  his  head  for  this.  He 
is  able  to  bear  it. 

Now  no  man  has  ever  said,  or  can  truly  say,  that  the  Vestry 
of  Christ  Church  in  former  times,  or  the  members  of  the 
present  Vestry,  have  ever  been  amongst  those  "  who  would 
destroy  the  unity  of  the  church,  or  on  either  side  disclaim  or 
reject  her  authority  or  long  established  customs  and  usages." 

It  is  simply  this,  that  the  Rector  very  properly  does  not 
wish  to  be  placed  in  a  false  position,  that  hereafter  it  ma}'' 
he  quoted  against  him — "  You  say  you  do  sympathize  with 
that  class  of  men,"  &c.     He  disclaims  it. 

As  to  supporting  the  evangelical  societies:  You  have  here 
before  you  the  By-laws  of  Christ  Church.  They  are  dit- 
ferent  from  those  in  many  of  the  churches.  They  prescribe 
that  the  Vestry,  not  the  Rector,  shall  determine  when  and 
for  what  purposes  all  the  collections  shall  be  taken  up  in 
this  Church,  except  the  communion  alms.  The  table  given 
on  pages  15  and  16  of  the  answer,  was  prepared  under  and 
by  direction  of  the  Vestry,  We  will  not  go  behind  to  show 
any  bickerings.  Our  allegation  is  that  the  Rector  has  not 
given  his  support  to  these  collections.  On  page  17  of  their 
answer,  they  put  it  to  us  about  "  the  paralyzed  condition" 
of  the  Church.  They  insert  the  word  "paralyzed,"  again 
and  again  in  their  answer.  But  I  assert  that  the  Church  is 
"paralyzed."     Gentlemen  of  the  Board,  do  you  think  that 


142 

a  Chnreli  is  in  a  liealtliy  condition  which  is  in  the  otic  this 
answer  asserts,  not  what  the  Vestry  asserts?  Do  you  think 
it  has  no  paral3'sis  in  it  ? 

As  to  the  Reading  room,  we  have  replied  to  that  in  our 
printed  Statement  and  I  shall  not  go  over  it  again. 

So  on  to  the  Lehman  street  Mission. 

Yon  will  see  a  slight  ditt'erence  in  tignres  as  to  tlie  numher 
of  pews  rented.  They  assert  that  at  the  present  time  there 
are  lOiJ  pews  rented.  The  Accounting  Warden's  hooks  are 
the  proper  ones  to  show  tlie  number  of  pews  rented,  and 
they  show  that  ninety-three  whole  pews  and  parts  of  four 
pews  are  rented. 

A  point  is  made  about  the  word  "  resume."  During  an 
interregnum  in  a  Parish  the  work  does  not  go  on  as  before, 
and  when  a  new  Rector  comes  the  work  should  be  "  re- 
sumed." 

As  to  the  word  "dropped"  on  page  6  of  our  Statement. 
If  they  wish  it,  we  wiil  simply  state  that  he  was  not  voted 
for. 

In  rescard  to  the  collections,  we  were  sneered  at,  had  figures 
marshalled  before  us  and  were  told  that  our  tignres  were 
wrong.  But  they  are  not  wrong — look  at  them  for  yourselves, 
— you  will  find  that  they  are  correctly  stated.  We  do  not 
include  Sunday  school  collections,  they  are  not  church  col- 
lections ;  and  we  do  not  include  the  individual  subscriptions 
of  gentlemen  who  sent  their  mone}^  directly  to  the  societies, 
with  the  express  direction  that  it  should  not  be  credited  to 
the  church.  Nor  did  we  include  a  special  collection  made  In 
June,  when  the  regular  collection  was  made  in  September. 

In  regard  to  the  collection  for  the  American  Churc]n  Mis- 
sionarySociety,  which  our  friends  say  is  generally  recognized 
as  Evangelical  -"  Evangelical"  in  quotation  marks,  sneering 
at  us— and  which  "  have  been  strangely  overlooked  by  us," 
we  thank  them  for  calling  our  attei>tion  to  it.  They  make 
out  an  increase  of  $230.54  in  the  collection  for  1871,  over 
that  >>f  1870.  Figures  are  dece])tive.  The  books  show  that 
the  collection  taken  up  September  18th,  1870,  was  $473  85 
"  "  1871     "  54  42 


making  a  decrease  of  $419.43 

We  are  told  about  a  controversy  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Atkins. 

The  printed  reply  disposes  of  this  in  a  few  words.    "  If  it  is 

intended  to  state  that  the  persons  who  now  oppose  Rev.  Dr. 


143 

Rnmnoy  stirred  np  controvorf^ies  in  Clirist  Churcli  in  the 
time  of  iMr.  Atkins,  it  is  nntounded." 

We  now  come  to  \vliat  I  was  sorry  to  see  in  their  pamph- 
let, and  Avliat  my  friends  will  regret  hereafter— the  gross 
personal  attacks  npon  certain  mcnd)crs  of  the  Vestry.  Com- 
pare the  spirit  of  these  two  pam[thlets,  read  them  for  yonr- 
selves.  I  do  not  wish  to  talk  much  about  them,  fearing  I 
may  sa}^  something  harsh. 

One  gentleman  is  attacked  in  tliis  pamphlet  in  the  most 
bitter  and  malevolent  spirit.  ITe  has  been  a  communicant 
in  Christ  Church  for  nearly  sixteen  years — has  lived  in  and 
near  Germantown  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  is  wv.W  kiiown 
in  that  community,  and  the  things  tliey  charge  him  with 
are  things  that  have  never  been  imputed  to  him  before. 
He  has  never  been  charged  with  lying  or  attempted  forger^^ 
l)efore  this.  In  this  Answer  he  is  charged  with  lying,  or  at- 
tempted forgery.  In  this  Answer  he  is  charged  with  either 
deliberate,  wilful  falsehood,  or  attempt  at  forgery.  It  is 
charged  in  the  appendix.  If  he  had  said  to  that  person 
what  is  charged  he  did,  he  must  either  have  told  birn  a  de- 
liberate, Avilt'ul  lie,  which  would  be  useless  as  soon  as  he 
brought  the  paper  out  for  him  to  sign,  for  then  it  would  be 
seen  that  their  two  names  were  not  on,  or  he  must  have 
forged  their  names.  This  gentleman  has  never  been  charged 
with  such  things  before.  His  character  has  always  been 
that  whatever  he  had  to  say  to  a  mail  he  did  not  keep  it  in, 
but  stated  it  to  him  plainly  and  positively.  His  character 
for  truth  has  never  been  doubted.  His  word  is  as  good  as 
Ijis  bond. 

But  again  and  again  they  call  him  a  Methodist.  That  is 
terrilile  ;  that  is  liorrible ;  that  is  enough  to  damn  him  for- 
ever— they  have  rung  the  changes  upon  it  all  the  way 
through.  It  occurs  many  times  on  ditterent  pages  But 
gentlemen,  in  the  first  place,  would  it  be  any  sin  for  him  to 
be  a  Methodist  ?  In  the  next  place  is  it  not  well  known 
that  for  nearly  sixteen  years  he  has  been  a  communicant  at 
Ciirist  Church  ?  He  has  told  you  why  he  has  not  been  con- 
firmed, and  what  his  intentions  are.      Ho  you  doubt  it? 

They  sneer  at  the  Presbyterians  and  Baptists,  and  all  those 
miserable  people  who  do  not  belong  to  our  church. 

J>ut  they  say  that  the  most  material  point  in  this  branch 
of  the  case  is,  whether  the  complainants  do  represent  the 
congregation  in  the  fullest  possible  maimer.  To  disprove 
this,  they  tell  us  tliat  they  carefully  prepared  a  table,  which 


144 

they  give  yon  on  pnge  26.  My  friend,  Mr.  C,  with  his  usual 
politeiie^^s,  has  furnished  me  the  fignres  in  detail.  As  it  was 
received  Friday  afternoon,  and  I  have  not  had  time  to  analyze 
it.  But  I  find  some  remarkahle  things  in  it.  One  lady  and  her 
daughter  connt  thirty.  She  has  a  boarding  school.  Another 
lady  is  a  warm  friend  of  the  Rector,  while  her  husband  sus- 
tains the  Vestr3^  Yet  she  is  put  down  as  if  she  were  the 
man  of  the  lionse,  holding  the  pew,  and  her  husband  is  counted 
in  with  her.  There  is  the  name  of  a  gentleman  who  is  un- 
married, wlio  according  to  their  own  statement  does  not  hold 
a  pew  or  sitting.  You  have  read  of  two  single  gentlemen 
being  rolled  into  one,  but  this  single  gentleman  is  rolled  out 
into  four. 

My  friend  tells  me  they  count  all  the  children  of  a  family, 
even  the  infants.  In  that  case  I  count  more  than  any  of 
the  other  side,  except  the  lady  who  has  the  boarding  school 
and  Mr.  S.     lie  counts  as  nine  and  so  do  I. 

But  away  with  this  badinage,  and  let  us  look  at  the  two 
lists.  One  hundred  and  one  names  are  on  their  list,  and  one 
hundred  and  twenty-nine  names  on  that  of  the  Vestry.  Now 
in  the  language  of  their  Answer,  see  page  5.  "  Every  one  knows 
how  readily  signatures  are  obtained  and  how  seldom  docu- 
ments are  read  by  signers.  None  are  more  surjirised  than 
those  signers  frequently  are  at  the  use  to  which  their  signa- 
tures are  put." 

No  one  denies  that  this  paper  was  circulated  in  that  Parish 
two  weeks  before  the  other  was  jirepared.  Every  one  knows 
how  iiard  it  is  for  any  person  to  sign  a  paper  against  the 
clergyman  of  a  Parish,  and  how  much  easier  it  is  to  sign  one 
in  his  favor.  The  other  side  know  that  their  paper  was 
presented  to  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  that  Parish  who 
would  sign  it,  or  that  there  was  any  hope  would  do  so.  I 
have  told  you  my  own  feelings  when  it  was  presented  to 
me.  You  know  how  difficult  it  is  for  a  member  of  a  con- 
gregation to  sign  a  paper  asking  the  Rector  to  resign.  Our 
gentlemen  found  that  as  they  went  around.  And  yet  in 
spite  of  all  that,  one  hundred  and  one  names  are  on  the 
paper  asking  him  to  stay,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine 
names  are  on  the  paper  asking  him  to  resign.  Take  off  the 
names  of  tliose  twenty-three  [persons  who  all  answered  the 
two  gentlemen  in  nearly  the  same  way,  and  there  are  one 
hundred  and  six  names  left. 

But,  gentlemen,  after  all,  as  ray  friend  on  the  other  side 
and   I   talked    the   matter   over    this    morning,  what  is   it 


145 

whether  there  is  a  ninjoi'ity  one  way  or  the  other?  Taking 
both  statements  it  must  Ije  nearl_y  bahmced. 

The  sneering  at  "  Evangelical"'  or  anytliing  of  tliat  kind, 
let  it  pass. 

The  real  questions  in  the  case  I  will  endeavor  to  sum  up  in 
a  few  words.  I  have  drawn  up  some  points  which  I  con- 
sider really  contain  the  gist  of  the  case,  which  I  will  give 
you  in  summing  up. 

1.  This  is  not  the  trial  of  the  Rector  upon  awy  charges 
whatever,  either  in  his  personal  or  ofiicial  character,  and 
cannot  result  canonically  in  any  condemnation  of  him  or 
anybody.  The  Vestry  carefully  avoided  in  their  statement 
of  the  case,  making  or  intimating  any  such  charges.  They 
have  sought  to  avoid  personalities  and  insinuations  through- 
out. Whether  they  have  succeeded  in  doing  so  you  can 
judge  hy  reading  their  two  pamphlets. 

2.  It  is  not  a  trial  to  decide  which  part}^  is  rifjht  in  the 
"  controversy,"  and  to  adjudge  accordingly.  You  must 
decide  whether  there  is  a  controversy,  and  whether  there  is 
a  reasonable  hope  of  a  favorable  termination. 

3.  Tiiis  Board  must  act  specifically  under  the  Canon  under 
and  by  virtue  of  which  it  has  been  constituted,  and  cannot 
depart  from  its  directions  to  decide  the  "  controversy  "  sub- 
mitted upon  any  other  considerations  or  principles,  or  with 
a  view  to  any  other  result  than  those  prescribed  by  the 
Canon.     The  Canon  is  exclusive  and  imperative. 

4.  There  is  indeed  a  two-fold  relation  of  rio:ht  to  the  ques- 
tion. (1)  Xo  injustice  must  be  done,  but  the  Canon  settles 
for  this  Jioard  that  what  it  commands  is  just.  (2)  If  hard- 
ship be  imposed  upon  one  side  by  the  decision,  it  is  to  be 
compensated  by  a  fair  imposition  on  the  other,  as  has  been 
done  by  all  the  former  Boards. 

5.  The  history  and  mind  of  the  Church  on  the  dissolution 
of  the  pastoral  connection  are  seen  in  its  legislation,  and  not 
in  the  opinion  of  individuals.  The  rights  of  Hectors  as  con- 
tracting parties  are  better  secured  tban  those  of  parishes. 
This  Board  is  to  protect  the  Parish  ;  and  yet  it  is  composed 
exclusively  of  clergymen. 

If  a  Kector  wishes  to  leave  his  Parish,  all  he  need  do  is  to 
say  to  them  "  I  wish  to  leave,"  and  get  the  consent  of  the 
Bishop.  The  congregation  have  nothing  to  say.  But  if  the 
congregation  wishes  to  change  a  Rector,  they  must  summon 
a  Board  as  tliis. 

6.  High  and  Low  Church  is  a  real  difference  and  a  sub- 
10 


146 

stnntial  2;ronnfl  of  controvers'y.,  f'^^lj'  snfiicicnt  to  explain  its 
existence  and  violence. 

I  have  gone  over  this  before  to  show  you  that  tliere  are 
two  parties  in  the  Church.  This  exphiins  why  there  can  be 
a  bitter  controversy  existing  in  a  particular  Church.  Men, 
as  i!!^apoleon  said,  tight  for  an  opinion.  Wars  have  raged 
for  mere  matter  of  opinion.  No  more  bitter  controversies 
liave  ever  existed  than  those  upon  matters  of  opinion.  If  you 
shut  up  in  the  same  cliurch  building  a  Rector  and  Congre- 
gotian,  or  Rector  and  Vestry,  with  different  views  on  these 
church  questions,  there  must  be  a  bitter  controversy. 

7.  The  Vestry  and  the  Parish  have  been  disappointed,  by 
whom  or  through  whom  is  not  essentiaL  The  Parish  has 
suffered  i,n  its  peace  and  in  its  efficiency. 

8.  'J'his  state  of  things  seems  likely  to  continue,  unless 
either  the  Rector  leaves,  or  the  church  is  revolutionized. 
You  must  come  to  this  conclusion  after  reading  this  answer, 
and  seeing  what  is  said  in  it  and  the  gross  personal  attacks. 
Can  you  doubt  it?  Have  you  a  right  to  bid  them  wait  for 
such  a  revolution  and  call  it  "  peace."  You  have  read  Taci- 
tus, and  know  what  he  says  as  to  how  peace  could  be  made 
in  Germany. 

9.  The  matters  alleged  against  the  Vestry  or  its  members 
only  go  to  show  the  incurable  character  of  the  controversy. 

10.  If  the  fault  is  in  the  Parish,  then  they  must  make 
amends,  in  case  a  dissolution  is  directed.  Unless  a  dissolu- 
tion is  judged  necessary,  the  Board  cannot  cauouically  advise 
or  decree  anything. 

11.  A  dissolution  would  be  for  the  good  of  both  parties, 
and  for  the  general  good  of  the  Church. 

Do  you  not  l»elieve  this,  gentlemen,  if  there  is  such  a  feel- 
ing in  this  Church  as  is  alleged  bj'  the  gei\tlemen  on  the 
other  side?  They  say  only  a  few  persons  desire  this  change. 
We  have  shovvn  you  that  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  of 
the  Church  support  the  Vestry  complainants,  and  will  vote 
for  them  at  the  Easter  election.  Bishop  Stevens,  in  his  last 
annual  charge,  tells  you  that  he  considers  the  Vestry  repre- 
sents the  Church  to  all  intents  and  purposes. 

I  say  again  that  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  will  l)c  for 
the  benefit  of  l)Oth  parties,  and  for  the  general  good  of  the 
CMiurch;  not  only  of  this  Church,  but  of  the  Church  at 
large. 

12.  If  the  Parish  is  wrong  it  will  suffer  more  than  the 
Rector  in  conserpience  of  a  separation. 


147 

1^0 w,  cccntlcmcn,  T  have  told  you  in  the  heginning  what 
were  Bishop  i'otter's  views,  please  bear  them  in  mind.  Bear 
with  me  while  I  state  to  you  from  page  191  of  his  life,  Avhat 
Bishop  Howe  says  of  liim.  He  states  that  which  we  all 
know,  that  which  you  know  better  than  I  do,  how  faithfully 
he  stood  b}'  his  clergy,  and  how  his  confidence  in  the  Chris- 
tian princi[)le  of  an  earnest  minister,  induced  him  to  assume 
"prhni  facie  that  if  he  were  wrong  he  was  so  by  mistake. 
Yet  Bishop  Howe  \\\  this  verj'  book  gives  two  letters,  show- 
ing how  severe  Bishop  Potter  was  upon  the  laity  in  a 
controversy  with  the  Koctor,  and  yet  in  both  these  letters 
he  says  that  the  clergymen  must  resign.  [Here  Mr.  V.  read 
the  letters  on  pages  191,  192  and  "l93  of  life  of  Bishop 
Potter.] 

I  say  that  in  both  those  cases  Bishop  Potter  says  the 
Vestry  are  clearly  and  entirely  wrong,  and  yet  the  Hector 
must  resign. 

I  know  that  Dr.  Rumney  wishes  to  resign.  I  take  his 
own  words,  "  Had  I  consulted  my  own  feelings  and  sensitive 
nature,  I  should  long  before  this  have  sought  peace  and 
quiet  by  removal  to  some  other  sphere." 

His  friends,  I  am  sorry,  advised  him  otherwise. 

N^ow,  gentlemen,  I  leave  it  to  you,  as  men  of  God,  as  judges 
in  this  cause,  to  say  whether  there  is  any  hope  of  a  favorable 
termination  of  this  controversy,  be  that  controversy  what  it 
may.  And  if  not,  whether  yoxi  think  the  peace  of  the 
church  and  its  prosperity  will  l)e  promoted  by  keeping- 
together  the  Rector  and  this  Vestry. 

In  what  I  have  said  I  have  endeavored  not  to  say  any- 
thing against  the  Christian  character  of  Dr.  Rumney.  The 
Vestry  have  endeavored  to  say  nothing  against  it. 

The  highest  aspersion  his  friends  charge  us  with,  is  in 
saying  that  he  is  a  High  Churchman. 

As  for  the  terms,  that  is  for  you  to  decide.  You  have 
those  other  cases  before  you  in  which  terms  have  been  given. 
The  Vestry  have  otfered  terms,  which  are  before  you.  It  is 
not  right  that  the  Rector  should  be  asked  to  leave  vvithout 
terms. 

A  gentleman  of  the  talents  of  Dr.  Rumney,  a  gentleman 
of  his  character  and  standing  has  the  whole  United  States 
before  him.  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  is  not  the  only 
church.  He  can  receive  a  more  congenial  church  with  a 
more  congenial  set  of  Vestrymen.  He  can  do  the  Master's 
work  and  there  do  it  well. 


AEGUMEITT   OF  THE  Rev.  Mr.  HARRIS. 

May  it  please  the  Court : 

Being  more  of  a  novice  in  this  kind  of  speaking  than  my 
eloquent  friend,  Mr.  Vail,  I  cannot  hope  to  compete  with 
him  in  producing  an  impression  upon  the  court.  As  I  am 
no  lawyer,  I  can  only  speak  upon  the  common-sense  aspect 
of  the  case,  and  leave  the  points  of  law  to  my  learned 
colleague. 

I  shall  try  to  be  brief,  and,  so  far  as  I  can,  follow  step  by 
step  the  points  made  by  my  learned  friend  who  has  just 
spoken. 

In  the  first  place  he  states  in  advance  what  our  argument 
will  be — namely,  that  the  union  between  a  rector  and  his 
parish  is  of  the  indissoluble  chaiacter  of  that  between  a  man 
and  his  wife.  I  never  thought  of  arguing  thus.  I  do  not 
believe  thus.     So  that  falls  to  the  ground. 

My  friend  next  asks  the  question — and  asks  it  very 
solemnly — "Is  there  a  controversy  here?" 

I,  for  one,  am  not  disposed  to  deny  it.  There  certainlj'  is 
a  controversy.  But  the  next  question  which  he  asks  strikes 
me  as  giving  the  key  of  the  whole  position.  "  How  did 
this  controversy  arise  ?" 

This  is  the  main  point,  I  take  it,  w^hich  the  court  has  to 
take  into  consideration  in  deciding  this  case ;  for  I  do  not  at 
all  agree  with  my  friend  in  his  view  of  the  case,  which,  as 
I  understand  him  is  this — that  the  canon  simply  requires  the 
court  to  register  its  opinion  that  there  is  a  controversy. 
No  court  was  necessary  to  determine  that,  for  it  is  evident 
on  the  surface. 

That  there  is  a  controversy  we  admit ;  but  my  good  fi'iend 
quoted  just  as  much  of  the  Canon  as  was  convenient  to  him, 
and  lorgot  to  read  the  rest  of  it.  With  your  ^eave,  I  will 
supply  his  omission.  You  will  no; ice  that  he  sto])}»ed  at  that 
part  of  the  second  section  of  the  Canon,  which  says,  that  ''if 
after  hearing  such  allegations  and  proofs  as  the  parties  may 
submit,  a  majority  of  the  Presbyters  shall  be  of  opinion 
that  there  is  no  hope  of  a  favorable  termination  of  such 
controversy." 

There  my  friend  stops ;  and  argues  that  if  the  court  come 
to  such  an  opinion,  they  simply  give  such  a  decision  and  the 
rector  must  go,  and  there  is  no  help  for  it. 

(148) 


149 

Bat  let  ns  see  what  the  Canon  does  say.  It  continues 
where  my  friend  left  it — "  and  that  a  dissokition  of  the  con- 
nection hetvveen  such  rector  or  assistant  minister,  and  his 
parish  or  congregation,  is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace  of  the 
church  and  promote  its  prosperity,"  &c. 

That  is  a  very  ditferent  thing  from  this,  viz. :  whether  the 
parties  in  the  church  who  have  originated  this  controversy 
with  the  rector,  are  the  only  ones  to  be  taken  into  consider- 
ation. It  concerns  the  whole  congregation,  and  not  simply 
these  discontented  members  of  the  vestry.  So  much  for 
that  point. 

My  friend  in  the  next  place  said  that  a  note  from  Mr. 
Champion,  and  various  other  matters  which  we  submitted  to 
the  court,  recognize  the  '•  Low  Church  "  character  of  "  Christ 
Church,  Germantown." 

I  don't  see  how  that  helps  his  case.  ISTo  one  on  our  side  of 
the  case  is  disposed  to  deny  that  Christ  Church,  Germantown, 
is  what  is  ordinarily  known  as  a  "  Low  Church."  We  have 
not  thought  it  worth  while  ro  dwell  on  that  point  in  our 
"answer."  We  admit  that  Christ  Church,  Germantown 
(while  it  can  find  no  authorization  for  so  being  in  its  char- 
ter), is  generally  recognized  as  "  Low  Church."  But  then 
we  claim  that  the  rector  is  a  "  Low  Churchman  ;"  and  we 
claim,  and  I  think  have  shown  vei'y  clearly,  that  no  proof 
at  all  has  been  made  that  the  present  rector  is  not  a  "  Low 
Churchman."  It  is  very  easy  to  call  a  man  a  "  High  Church- 
man "  or  a  "  Ritualist,"  but  the  proof  of  it  is  another  thing. 
We  must  go  beyond  this  mere  bandying  of  names  ;  and  if  the 
term  "  Low  Church'"  or  "  Evangelical  "  be  taken  in  its  fair, 
honest,  and  customary  acceptation,  then  we  say  that  the 
rector  is  a  "Low  Churchman."  And,  as  far  as  Mr.  Cham- 
pion's note  is  concerned,  the  statement  that  his  family  are 
thinking  of  taking  a  pew  in  Christ  Church,  shows  in  the 
most  practical  way  that  he  at  least  considers  the  rector  to 
be  a  "  Low  Churcliman."  My  friend  next  tries  to  invalidate 
our  statement  of  what  occurred  in  vestry  meeting. 

Please  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  gentlemen  who  are  quoted 
in  our  "answer"  (as  making  statements  with  reference  to 
what  took  place  and  what  did  not  take  place  at  the  vestry 
meeting),  state  very  jiositively  that  such  and  such  things  did, 
and  such  and  such  things  did  not  take  place. 

To  rebut  this  testimony  you  have  nothing  \mt  vague  asser- 
tions of  not  recollecting  anything  about  it;  as  for  instance 


150 

in  tliG  printed  paper  read  by  Mr.  Vail,  ^Yhore  'Mr.  W.  C. 
Houston  says,  "I  do  not  recollect  of  saying,"  &c.  Mr. 
Spencer  says,  "I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  asking  Mr. 
Schaetfer  to  sign,"  &c. 

jMk.  Vail.  That  was  not  about  what  took  place  in  the 
vestry  meeting. 

Mr.  Harris.  That  makes  no  diflerence,  in  both  cases  there 
is  only  tlie  mistiness  of  ''  no  recollection,"  to  oppose  to  posi- 
tive assertion. 

The  other  side — to  recur  to  another  point  attempted  to 
be  made  by  them — harp  u}»on  their  own  allegation  that  there 
is  "  no  assertion  "  (in  our  "  answer,")  "  that  the  rector  is  a 
Low  Churchman." 

I  beg  to  say  in  answer  to  this  that  we  do,  distinctly  and 
emphatically,  make  that  assertion,  and  we  refer  the  court  to 
the  printed  words.  AVe  did  not,  it  is  true,  think  it  necessary 
to  be  proclaiming  on  every  ]iage  of  the  "  answer,"  that  "  this 
man  is  d  Low  Churchman  ;"  but  we  do  say  at  the  close  of  it 
(p.  30). 

"  The  question  is  in  no  sense  a  party  one.  It  is  simply 
whether  justice  shall  be  aceord(»d  by  the  majority  of  an 
'  Evangelical'  vestry  to  one  who  is  in  every  true  and  honest 
seiise  of  the  word  an  '■  Evangelical '  rector  ;  and  who  stands 
to-day,  to  quote  the  words  of  his  Bishop,  'free  from  all 
personal  or  canonical  reproach,  and  with  an  unimpeached 
ministeral  record.'  " 

In  s])ite  of  this,  ni}^  friend,  Mr.  Vail,  persists  in  saying  that 
Dr.  Rumney  is  not  a  Low  Churchman,  and  docs  not  claim 
to  be  a  Low  Churchman,  but  rather  carefully  :»voids  the  im- 
putation of  being  such.  To  [irove  this  last  rather  singular 
assertion,  reference  is  exultingly  made  to  the  correspondence 
between  the  Bishop  and  I)r.  Rumney  on  this  point,  published 
on  pp.  13,  14,  and  15  of  our  "  answer,"  the  last  }iart  of  the 
Bishop's  letter  of  September  30th,  1871,  being  quoted — as 
follows: 

"  You  have  assured  me  a2;ain  and  again  tliat  your  views  are 
unchanged  from  what  they  were  when  you  were  unani- 
mously elected  rector  of  Christ  Church  ;  that  you  never 
designed  making  any  changes  in  the  services  or  in  the  eccle- 
siastical status  of  that  Parish  ;  and  that  your  synqjathiea 
were  with  the  general  doctrines  and  })(>licy  of  that  class  of 
men  with  which  Christ  Church  has  usually  been  identified. 
liencCj  having  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  these  asser- 


151 

tions,  I  cannot  l)ut  regret  the  keeping  up  of  agitation  on 
these  points  as  unnecessary  and  unwise,  and  as  detrinioutal 
aUke  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  your  ]\T,rish," 

And  now,  mark  the  position  taken  by  my  friend  on  tlie 
other  side.  According  to  him,  Dr.  Rumney  l.eing  a  man  of 
truth  and  honor,  coukl  not  for  a  moment  rest  under  any  im- 
putation of  being  a  Low  Churchman.  He  must  (still  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Vail)  instant!}'  write  a  disclaimer  to  the  Bishop; 
and  it  is  Dr.  Runiney's  letter  which  (my  friend  seems  to 
think)  furnishes  him  with  a  ]>eg  on  which  to  liang  his  hat. 

One  portion  of  that  letter  I  beg  leave  to  read.  j)r.  Kum- 
ney  says  (like  an  honorable  man  as  he  is): 

"  To  one  part  of  that  reply"  (of  the  Bishop's)  "  I  beg  leave 
to  allude,  that  in  any  future  reference  to  it  there  may  l)e  no 
misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  any.  You  say  you  have 
been  assured  by  me  that  my  sympatliies  are  with  the  general 
doctrines  and  policy  of  that  class  of  men  Avith  which  Christ 
Church  has  usually  been  identified.  By  this  I  understand 
you  not  to  mean  that  I  symi)athize  with  any  who  would 
destroy  the  unity  of  the  church,  or  on  either  side  disclaim 
or  reject  her  authority  and  long-established  customs  and 
usages.  Such  persons,  in  my  opinion,  go  contrary  to  what 
my  judgment  teaches  me  is  right,  and  also  are  in  conflict 
with  what  I  take  the  liberty  of  presuming  from  his  pub- 
lished statements,  are  the  opinions  of  my  Bishop.  With  this 
understanding,  I  can  assure  you  that  it  shall  be  my  purpose 
(God  being  my  helper)  to  persevere  in  that  maintenance  of 
gospel  truth,  and  that  character  of  churchmanship  which 
have  hitherto  marked  my  life,  standing  before  you,  as  3'ou 
say  in  vour  letter  to  me,  'with  uniuipeached  ministerial 
record.'"" 

There!  says  Mr.  Vail  triumphantly;  what  do  3'ou  tliink 
of  tliat?  Dr.  Kunmey  is  not  willing  to  be  considered  a  Low 
Churchman  ! 

I  admit,  that  it  is  evident  from  this  letter,  that  Dr.  Rum- 
ney is  not  an  "  Evangelical  as  we  Low  Churchmen  under- 
stand it,"  if  by  that  is  meant  the  being  willing  to  remain  in 
the  church, and  insist  on  setting  at  defiance  the  authority  of 
the  church  ;  but  these  complainants  are  bound  (if  they  Avish 
to  make  out  their  case  fairly,  even  upon  their  own  chosen 
grounds)  to  disprove  that  the  rector  of  Christ  Church, 
Germantown,  is  a  Low  Churchman  in  the  honest  and'  fair 
accc[»tatiou  of  that  term.     He  is  not,  we  freely  admit,  such 


152 

a  Low  Churchman  as  to  be  willing  to  ostracize  his  brethren 
in  the  ministry  of  the  church — to  say  to  them  "You  do  not 
i:)reach  'the  Gospel,'  and  so  you  cannot  come  into  my  pul- 
pit oi*  chancel  ;  'stand  by  thyself,  I  am  holier  than  thou;' 
you  may  come  as  far  as  the  threshold  of  my  church,  but 
further  you  cannot  come  unless  it  be  as  an  liuinble  listener 
to  my  exposition  of  a  '  pure  gospel;'  we  all  owe  allegiance, 
it  is  true,  to  the  same  standards,  and  in  our  ordination 
vow  made  the  same  promises,  but  you  must  not  venture  to 
teach  my  flock,  for  you  are  not  '  Evangelical '  in  the  true 
sense  in  which  I  am  1" 

The  rector  is  not  such  an  "  Evangelical."  We  admit  it, 
gladly.  When  he  came  into  residence  in  Gerraantown,  he 
made  up  his  mind  that  he  would  not  taboo  his  brother 
Presbyters  there,  as  the  former  rector  did,  but  that  he 
would  meet  them  as  brother  Presbyters  should  be  met,  with- 
out any  assumptions  of  superior  piety  or  devotion  to  God's 
truth ;  and  in  this  he  had  the  distinct  sanction  and  advice 
of  his  Bishop,  who  expressed  his  hope  "  that  the  former 
policy  of  non-intercourse  should  cease."  Now,  Bishop  Stev- 
ens is  what  is  known  ordinarily  as  a  Low  Churchman,  or 
"  Evangelical  "  if  the  term  be  preferred,  and  l)r.  Rumney's 
views  seem  to  accord  with  tlie  Bishop's ;  and  if  preaching 
"  Evangelical  "  doctrine,  conducting  the  church  services  in 
the  way  which  is  customary  in  what  are  known  as  "Evangeli- 
cal" churches,  supporting  church  societies  which  claim  the 
distinction  of  being  "  Evangelical,"  and  sustaining  in  the 
whole  tone  of  his  life  and  conversation  a  status  analogous 
to  that  of  a  majority  of  those  known  as  Low  Churchmen — 
if  these  things  entitle  a  man  to  be  fairl_y  and  honestly  con- 
sidered a  Low  Churchman — then  we  claim  that  Dr.  Eum- 
ney  is  one. 

And  now,  as  to  the  matter  of  tlie  "  Evangelical  "  societies, 
and  Dv.  Rumney's  alleged  failure  to  sustain  them. 

He  has  sustained  them  as  our  facts  and  figures  prove.  He 
has  not,  it  is  true,  [)Ut  his  hand  into  his  own  pocket  to  make 
up  deficiencies  ;  but  he  has  done  everything  else  which  he 
could.  He  has  had  collections  taken  regularly,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  arrangements  made  by  the  vestry — arrange- 
ments wdiich  he  found  in  force  when  he  came  to  the  parish 
and  which  he  has  preserved  unchanged.  He  has  statedly 
preached  to  his  congregation  on  behalf  of  these  objects, 
urging    them    to    sustain    them ;  and  if,  for  ulterior  pur- 


153 

posos  of  their  own,  certai!!  persons  have  manipnlated  their 
contributions  so  as  to  make  it  appear  that  the  general  con- 
tributions of  the  church  were  falHng  off,  is  that  chargeahle 
upon  the  rector?  Does  it  show  that  he  is  unwilling  to  sus- 
tain the  societies  in  question  ?  I  think  a  very  ditferent  con- 
struction should  be  [)Ut  upon  it.  Then,  as  to  this  "paralyzed 
condition "  of  the  parish,  which  my  good  friend  said  we 
made  so  merry  over — Mr.  President,  there  is  a  great  deal  in 
this  word  "  paralyzed."  We  meet  it  at  the  very  outset  of 
the  complainants' "  statement."  They  charge  directly  that 
the  rector  has  "  reduced  this  once  flourishing  parish  to  a 
paralyzed  condition" — and  the  charge,  directly  and  indi- 
rectly, runs  all  tlirough  their  statement.  They  make  the 
charge,  but  they  fail  to  bring  the  proof;  and  I  think  if  we 
look  at  the  whc^le  work  of  the  parish  it  will  be  found  to  be 
iu  as  active  a  condition  as  any.  We  have  a  right  to  make 
merry  over  the  allegation  of"  paralysis." 

With  regard  to  the  number  of  pews  and  parts  of  pews 
taken,  my  friend  attempts  to  invalidate  our  statement ;  and, 
besides  tlie  inaccuracy  of  his  own  figures,  triumphantly 
points  to  the  fact  that  twenty-four  pews,  "  which  are  set  apart 
as  FREE  FEWS,"  are  "  not  taken  I" 

Why,  sir,  we  took  for  granted  that  when  the  vestry  set 
apart  a  certain  number  of  pews  to  be  "  free  pews,"  tliey  were 
acting  in  good  faith,  and  we  did  not  Fuppose  that  we  had 
any  right  to  count  them  as  among  pews  which  could  be 
"taken,"  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word.  We  had  too 
much  confidence  in  their  honor  to  su[)pose  any  such  thing; 
and  we  have  had  exhibited  to  us  a  ground  plan  of  the 
church,  with  a  statement  of  members  of  the  vestry  accom- 
panying it,  showing  that  with  the  exception  of  these  free 
pews,  every  pew,  in  whole  or  in  part,  is  "  taken."  Our 
statement  on  this  point,  therefore,  has  not  been  controverted. 

With  reference  to  the  "  collections,"  I  shall  have  more  to 
say  further  on.  Our  figures  have  been  considerably  traversed, 
but  I  do  not  see  that  any  real  answer  has  been  made  to  their 
exhibit.  So  far  as  the  American  Church  Missionary  Society 
is  concerned,  their  statement  made  this  afternoon  that  the 
collections  were  larger  in  1870  than  in  1871,  is  not  to  the 
jioint  at  all.  They  were  both  taken  during  i)r.  Kunmey's 
rectorship,  and  they  were  both  acknowledged  under  one 
authority — a  report  of  the  American  Church  Missionary 
Society.     But  I  pass  this  for  the  present. 


154 

And  now,  Afr.  PrGsiJcnt,  Avitli  regard  to  the  "gross  per- 
sonal attacks  "  which  are  charged  upon  us,  I  have  only  to 
say,  that  it  is  sometimes,  owing  to  peculiar  circumstances, 
difficult  to  avoid  hurting  some  people's  feelings  by  simply 
telling  the  truth. 

There  has  been  no  malignity,  or  the  intention  of  it  on  our 
part,  so  far  as  I  know.  I  forget  the  iierce  word  my  friend 
used  in  describing  the  animus. 

In  the  "statement"  of  the  complainants  there  had  cer- 
tainly been  a  very  elaborate,  labored,  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  rector  had  been  guilty  of  a  lie ;  and  any  one  who 
should  read  that  statement  without  reading  also  the  expo- 
sure, would  be  very  likely  to  think,  "  Why,  dear  me,  they 
might  have  brought  a  far  more  serious  cliarge  against  the 
rector  than  being  a  High  Churchman,  if  that  thing  were 
truel" 

AVhile  I  am  on  this  point,  I  might  as  well  tinish  it,  and 
answer  the  denunciations  that  were  hurled  upon  us  this 
afternoon. 

I  ask  the  court  to  notice  that  on  page  20  of  the  first 
"statement  of  the  vestry  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown," 
Dr.  Eumnej^  is  reported  in  a  certain  conversation  to  have 
said,  "I  did,"  instead  of  "  I  did  not."  _ 

I  did  not,  myself,  hear  the  correction  made  at  the  first 
meeting  of  the  court  when  tliat  "statement"  was  read  ;  but 
at  that"  particular  point  I  saw  the  rector  turn  to  Mr.  H.  11. 
Houston  (who  was  sitting  beside  him),  and  say  something — 
it  appeared  to  me  indignantly — and  1  saw  one  of  the  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  go  to  the  person  who  was  reading  the 
"statement"  and  say  something  to  him.  I  did  not,  myself, 
hear  what  was  said;  but  others  who  were  present — and,  it  I 
mistake  not,  some  members,  certainly  one  member  of  the 
court — did  hear  exception  to  that  statement,  and  the 
promise  that  the  error  should  be  corrected. 

But,  at  any  rate,  whatever  may  have  been  the  understand- 
ing then,  the  facts  are  simply  these:  that  in  the  conversation 
alkuled  to  on  page  20,  Dr.  Runmey  actually  answered,  "I 
did  not ;"  he  did  not  answer  "  I  did." 

If  that  be  the  case,  and  it  is  the  case,  then  all  those  two 
or  three  pages,  in  which  Dr.  Kumney  is  held  up  to  public 
scorn  as  being,  to  use  the  mildest  term,  a  "  tergiversationist," 
fall  to  the  ground. 

ISow  my" friend  talks  about  "personal  attacks."     I  should 


155 

like  to  know  how  j'oii  can  more  grossly  attack  in  a  personal 
manner  a  clergyman  than  by  trying  to  make  him  ont  a  liar  1 
That  is  the  plain  English  of  it;  nothing  more,  nothing  less. 
Among  men  of  the  world  there  is  always  a  })ractical  and 
summary  way  of  meeting  such  an  insult.  But  a  clergyman 
is  debarred  from  that.  He  has  to  sit  still  and  bear  it  as 
patiently  as  he  can,  until  Iiis  friends,  as  in  this  case,  come 
before  the  Board,  before  whom  the  charge  is  spread,  and 
contradict  the  lie,  and,  humiliating  as  it  rjuiy  be,  )>rove  that^ 
he  lias  been  honest,  and  straightforward  throughout. 

As  to  the  personal  attacks  which  we  are  charged  as 
making,  as  I  said  al)ove,it  makes  some  people  uncomfortable 
to  have  the  truth  told  about  them.  We  have  not  gone  out 
of  our  way  ;  we  have  simply  stated  certain  facts,  and  these 
facts  cannot  be  dis})roved.  If  they  can,  let  them  be  dis- 
proved here  and  now. 

My  friend  tried  hard  to  made  another  point  against  us. 
He  charges  us  (and  dwells  feelingly  u})On  the  charge)  with 
"snearing"  at  Methodists  and  Baptists,  and  Lutherans  and 
Presbyterians. 

This  is  a  gross  misunderstanding  of  our  position.  AVe  in- 
tended to  do  no  such  thing.  What  we  did  mean  to  say,  was 
simply  this,  that  certain  persons  are  claimed  by  the  com- 
plainants as  their  supporters,  who  do  not  owe  allegiance  to 
the  "  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  states  of 
America,"  in  the  way  which  her  laws  require  ;  and  we  claim 
that  such  persons  should  have  no  voice  in  the  government  of 
that  church.     That  is  all. 

!N^ow  suppose  you  or  I  should  go  into  a  meeting  of 
Friends — tlie  most  peaceable  [)eople  in  the  Avorld — and 
should  attempt  to  dictate  to  them  how  they  should  do  this, 
that,  or  the  other  thing,  we  should  certainly  be  met  with  the 
statement:  "Friend,  thee  has  no  business  here,  go  thy 
way." 

Every  organized  body  has  its  own  laws,  and  only  those 
who  own  and  i)ay  obedience  to  those  laws  have  the  full  privi- 
leges of  the  body,  have  a  right  to  a  voice  in  the  government  of 
the  body. 

I  claim  that  there  is  no  "  sneering"  in  that.  It  is  most 
unfair  and  ungenerous  in  my  friend  to  attempt  to  put  it  in 
that  light. 

We  have  a  right  to  say  if  any  gentleman  is  avowedly 
a  Presbyterian,  30U   may    go    into  a  Presbyterian    church 


156 

and  help  to  mnnage  that  church  ;  and  we  may  say  the  same 
of  the  Alethodist,  and  the  Bayttist,  and  the  Lutheran,  and 
their  respective  churches  ;  but,  we  have  a  right  to  add,  "  do 
not  take  upon  you  to  help  manage  the  aft'airs  of  the 
l*rotestant  Episcopal  Church."  That  is  all  ;  and  the  charter 
of  this  particular  church  recognizes  that  in  the  most  posi- 
tive way.  It  does  not  saj^  anything  about  Presbyterians,  or 
Methodists,  or  Baptists,  &c.  ;  but  it  does  say  that  only  those 
who  are  fully  members,  "  lawful  communicants,"  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  shall  be  invested  with  all  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  that  church  ;  and  we  simply  ]ioint 
out  certain  gentlemen  who  claim  those  rights  and  privileges 
who  do  not,  by  the  terms  of  the  charter,  really  possess  them. 
There  is  no  intention  of  "  sneering."  I  would  be  the  last 
man  in  the  world  to  commit  the  2;ross  outrao;e  of"  sueurino;" 
at  any  man  for  his  religious  belief. 

JMr.  Vail.     I  believe  it. 

Mr.  Harris.  I  trust  that  point  will  be  considered  as  falTmg 
to  the  ground.  I  must  say  that  it  is  unworthy  of  my  friend 
to  cast  such  an  im[tutation  upon  us.  He  knew  very  well  that 
there  was  no  such  intention  on  our  part. 

And  now  with  regard  to  the  point  which  he  made  at  the 
last,  in  his  summing  up,  viz.  :  that  this  is  not  a  "  trial" 
to  determine  which  part}'  is  right,  but  simply  to  determine 
the  existence  of  a  controversy." 

I  beg  to  differ  from  him  on  that  point.  It  is  a  "trial," 
and  this  ])ody  is  a  court,  because  it  is  within  tlie  power  of 
this  Board  of  Presbyters  to  impose  a  penalty  under  certain 
circumstances.  But  then  I  do  not  believe  (and  I  think  the 
terms  of  the  Canon  bear  out  my  assertion) — I  do  not  believe 
that  the  Canon  was  simply  intended  in  a  certain  formal  way 
to  enable  five  Presbyters  of  tlie  church  to  hear  that  a  con- 
troversy exists,  and  that,  having  heard  it,  all  they  could  do 
was  to  say  to  the  rector,  "  Here,  pack  up  and  be  off  with 
you?"  I  do  not  believe  the  cliurch  ever  intended  such  a 
thing  to  be  the  result  of  her  legislation.  I  look  upon  this 
Canon  as  a  protective,  not  a  destructive  Canon.  The  oppo- 
site view  is  contrary  to  every  principle  of  common  sense,  and 
it  is  patent  to  the  court.  The  court  are  not  simply  to  de- 
termine that  a  controversy  exists,  but  to  go  furtljor  and 
determine  answers  to  these  questions  :"  Who  is  the  guilty 
party,  ?"  "  Who  is  the  party  that  has  been  stirring  up  the 
mud?"     These  questions  must  enter  into  the  judgment. 


157 

M}'  friend  says  "  no  injustice  must  be  done."  I  tliinkthat 
unless  those  questions  are  taken  into  consideration,  great 
injustice  cannot  fail  to  be  done.  My  friend  is  right — "  no 
injustice  must  be  done"  under  this  Canon, — no  injustice  to 
the  rector,  or  to  the  congregation  ;  for  they  must  be  taken 
into  consideration  as  well  as  the  complainants. 

The  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side  gravely  said  some- 
thing this  afternoon  about  "  compensation."  Mr.  President, 
some  one  offered  "  conijiensation" — a  money  value — to  an 
apostle,  once,  and  got  for  an  answer :  "  Thy  money  perish 
with  thee." 

I  think  that  to  bring  in  this  question  of  money — dollars 
and  cents — to  a  gentleman,  one  who  has  been  trying  to  do 
his  duty,  and  because  he  has  done  Ids  duty  faithfully  in 
obedience  to  the  laws  of  his  church  has  given  offence — 
Heaven  knows  why — to  certain  persons  who  hold  the  laws 
of  the  church  jn  very  light  esteem — and  to  say  :  "Here, 
you  I  we  do  not  like  you;  you  don't  suit  us;  what  wid 
you  take  to  go?" — i^augh!! — I  think  the  answer  of  that 
apostle  might  very  well  be  made  in  such  a  case — only 
perhaps  in  stronger  terms. 

An  absolute  money  value!  Why  one  who  goes  f  om  a 
parish  under  such  circumstances  and  conditions,  has,  how- 
ever innocent  of  wrong  lie  may  be,  a  stigma  aflixed  to  hini 
that  money  will  iiot  be  a  compensation  for. 

But  I  pass  that. 

There  are  one  or  two  otlier  points  which  may  be  adverted 
to  very  briefly.  My  friend  says  that  the  history  of  the  mind 
of  the  church  is  to  be  seen  in  her  legislation.  I  agree  with 
him.  He  also  says  that  it  is  the  duty  of  this  court  to  pro- 
tect the  parish — I  agree  with  him  again — I  believe  that  to 
be  the  duty  of  the  court  ;  and  therefore  I  ask  it  to  take 
everything  into  consideration.  It  is  not  constituted  simply 
to  athrm  the  existence  of  a  controversy,  but  it  is  constituted 
to  protect.  It  is  bound  to  take  other  matters  than  the  mere 
fact  of  controversy  into  consideration. 

The  incurable  character  of  the  controversy  was  another 
point  which  my  friend  dwelt  upon. 

Perhaps  the  controversy  is  incurable,  in  one  aspect  of  the 
case.  There  are  some  people  who  never  will  admit  them- 
selves to  be  wrong ;  and  if  these  people  choose  and  are 
allowed  to  remain  and  to  continue  to  make  trouble,  the  con- 
troversy may  be  "  incurable."  But  then  I  think  the  court 
is  bound  to  take  that  matter  into  consideration  also,  and  to 


158 

clearly  fix  the  blame  whore  it  belongs,  and  to  restrain  a 
further  continuance  of  strife.  As  for  the  statement  that  in 
event  of  a  separation  the  parish  will  suiter  more  than  the 
rector  by  such  separation,  it  ought  to  be  so  certainly;  but 
unfortunately  it  is  not  so  in  fact.  All  that  the  penalty  upon 
the  parish  can  amount  to  is  the  being  deprived  of  a  represen- 
tation in  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese;  no  very  great  punish- 
ment, certainly  ;  at  any  rate  not  in  Pennsylvania. 

I  pass  now  to  another  matter. 

The  "additional  statement,"  as  read  by  Mr.  Vail  this 
afternoon,  says  (in  the  middle  of  its  first  page)  "The 
statement  of  the  seven  gentlemen  is  clear  and  distinct. 
The  long  letter  of  Mr.  Beeknutn  L*otter  contains  but  two 
things — abuse  of  the  vestry  and  other  incorporators,  and 
a  setting  forth  of  his  personal  claims." 

This,  I  presume,  is  intended  to  invalidate  the  force  of 
Mr.  Potter's  letter. 

As  I  read  that  letter,  it  states  certain  facts  of  which  he 
(Mr.  Potter)  was  entirely  cognizant.  His  statement  of 
facts  is  simply  directl}^  contradictory  of  the  statement  of 
alleged  facts  made  by  the  gentleman  who  drew  up  tliat 
paper  signed  by  the  seven.  If  that  be  personal  ahuse  we 
cannot  help  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  gentleman  who 
drew  up  the  paper  signed  by  the  seven,  knew  nothing  of 
what  he  was  writing  about,  lie  was  engaged  at  the  time 
referred  to  in  "starting"  the  Church  of  the  Crucifixion,  in 
Philadcl})hia,  in  the  same  way  in  which  Mr.  lleekman  I'otter 
was  "starting"  Christ  Church,  Germantown.  We  simply 
claim  that  Mr.  Bcekman  Potter,  being  on  the  spot,  was  fully 
capable-of  knowing  exactly  what  he  had  done,  and  was  en- 
titled to  give  that,  early  historj^  of  this  church  in  German- 
town.     They  have  not  disproved  his  assertions. 

At  the  risk  of  repetition,  I  must  notice  the  printed  state- 
ment (on  p.  32  of  their  additional  paper),  "il'hey  reiterate 
the  charge  so  constantly  that  iteration  of  reply  is  at  any 
rate  excusable.  They  say  "  We  did  say  '  that  a  very  short 
time  served  to  show  that  Dr.  Humney  was  not  an  Evangelical 
man,  as  we  Low  Churchmen  understand  it,  and  that  he  was 
nor  willing  to  support  those  Evangelical  Societies  which  it 
had  been  the  invariable  practice  of  Christ  Church  to  sup- 
2)ort.'  We  do  not  understand  from  anything  that  has  yet 
t)een  said  or  alleged  in  the  answer  or  otherwise,  that  Dr. 
Kunmey  claims  to  bean  Evangelical  man  as  we  Low^  Church- 
men understand  it,  or  that  lie  sympathises  in  any  manner 


159 

■vvitli  tho  Low  Church  party,  or  that  the  colloctions  for  the 
Evaiisxx'lical  Societies  were  made  hy  his  special  choice  or  desire, 
instead  of  under  the  direction  of  the  vestry,  given  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  by  laws  on  the  subject  of  collections  in 
the  church." 

I  should  like  to  know  what  an  Evangelical  man  is,  "  as  Ave 
Low  Churchmen  understand  it." 

I  can  onlj^  understand  it  in  one  of  two  ways.  One  is,  being 
a  man  who  holds  what  are  ordinarily  called  Evangelical 
views  as  opposed  to  distinctively  High  Church  views;  one 
who  conducts  tlie  service  in  the  way  which  is  ordinarily  used 
in  "  Evangelical"  Cliurches,  or  Low  Clinrches,  if  you  prefer  ; 
one  Avho  preaches  "  Evangelical"  doctrines,  and  who  supports 
"  Evangelical"  Societies.  T  can  understand  that ;  and  the 
onl}-  other  way  in  which  I  can  understand  the  designation 
is  that  of  a  man  who  not  only  holds  those  views,  |)reaehes 
those  doctrines,  and  does  those  thincjs,  but  who  also  holds 
them,  preaches  tliem,  and  does  them  in  an  oli'ensive  way,  a 
narrow  .minded  way,  or  in  a  way  which  contravenes  the 
legislation  of  the  cljurch,  her  canons  and  rubrics.  So  far  as 
I  can  see,  these  two  classes  comprise  all  ;  and  certainly  Dr. 
Rnmney  is  not  one  of  the  latter  class.  If  being  one  of  that 
class  is  Avhat  they  mean  by  "  an  Evangelical  as  we  Low 
Churchmen  understand  it,"  there  is  certainly  no  controversy 
about  it. 

But  we  go  further,  and  claim  that  the  rector  of  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  is  not  bound  to  be  "  an  Evangelical, 
as  Ave  Low  Churchmen  understand  it,"  if  that  is  Avhat  they 
mean  by  it. 

We  say,  in  vicAv  of  his  position  and  his  OAvn  statements, 
that  he  does  agree  Avith  the  general  vicAvs  of  the  Loav  Church 
party  ;  and  teaches  as  they  teach,  and  conducts  the  services 
as  they  do,  and  supports  their  Avork  generally.  This  Ave 
claim  that  he  has  done,  and  Ave  have  proved  it.  They  assert 
that  lie  has  not,  but  their  assertion  is  not  sustained  l)y  proof. 
And  now,  Avhat  is  the  use  of  their  saying  that  nothing  has 
been  said  or  alleged  in  the  answer^or  otherwise,  to  show  that 
Dr.  Kuniney  "sympathises  in  any  maimer  Avith  the  Low 
Church  party,  or  that  the  collections  for  the  Evangehcal 
Societies  Avere  made  by  his  especial  choice  or  desire,  instead 
ot  under  the  direction  of  the  ve^ry,"  &c.  What  is  the  use 
of  this  allegation  ? 

Dr.  Kunuiey  Avent,  a  new  rector,  to  Clirist  Church.  He 
found  that  arrangements  had  been  made  by  the  former  rector 


IGO 

for  certain  stated  collections,  and  that  the  card  setting  forth 
the  order  of  those  collections  was  iti  nse,  and  regulated  the 
times  at  which  they  were  taken.  No  one  said  to  him  "  this 
is  all  wrong,"  *•'  you  are  breaking  a  hy-law,"  or  the  like.  He 
received  no  intiniation  that  the  vestry  desired  a  change,  and 
he  went  quietly  on  in  the  way  which  he  found  appointed 
when  he  came  to  the  parish.  We  have  no  allegation  tliat  h? 
made  a  change,  but  only  this — that  his  sympathies  were  not 
as  ardent  perhaps  as  they  might  be ;  that  "  it  was  not  his 
especial  choice  or  desire  ;"'  that  he  did  not  wax  very  enthu- 
siastic about  it,  and  go  rushing  up  and  down  his  parish 
talking  about  it.     Such  a  charge  is  the  veriest  trifling. 

The  statement  that  Dr.  Rumney's  ecclesiastical  status  is 
not  in  harmony  with  that  of  the  general  policy  of  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  is  too  well  known  to  be  false  to  need 
denial  in  detail.  It  is  not  in  sjmipathy  with  the  radical  men 
of  the  vestry  ;  but,  as  regards  the  general  policy  of  the 
church,  I  simply  meet  their  assertion  by  a  denial. 

The  complainants  attempt  to  show,  in  detail,  the  falling 
off  in  the  work  of  the  parish,  under  Dr.  Eumney,  from  its 
flourishino'  condition  under  Mr.  Atkins.  A  readino-  room, 
they  say,  was  in  successful  operation  under  Mr.  Atkins,  and 
no  longer  exists  under  the  present  rector.  Why,  sir,  in  point 
of  fact,  that  reading  room  died  under  ]\Ir.  Atkins's  care,  and 
was  decently  buried  under  him  !  I  do  not  su|)pose  that  the 
present  rector  thought  it  worth  while  to  go  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  necessity  of  digging  up  a  cor[)se  and  trying  to 
galvanize  it.  He  considered,  no  doubt,  that  the  experiment 
had  been  fairly  tried,  and  that,  having  been  a  failure,  it  was 
not  necessary  to  have  that  failure  a  second  time. 

The  complainants  say:  "As  to  the  statement  that  the 
Mission  in  Lehman  street  is  fully  as  successful  as  Centre 
Mission,  we  can  only  reply,  that,  it  must  have  been  made 
under  an  entire  misapprehension  of  the  former  condition 
and  work  of  Centre  Mission." 

To  this  I  reply  that  said  statement  was  made  under  no 
such  "  misapprehension,"  but  with  a  full  knowledge  of  all 
the  facts  of  the  case. 

The  matter  of  the  pews,  which  next  follows  in  the  "  addi- 
tional" printed  "statement"  of  the  complainants,  I  have 
already  alluded  to,  and  have  nothing  more  to  say  here;  as 
is  also  the  case  with  the  repeated  inaccuracy  in  their  state- 
ment of  Dr.  Rumney's  use  of  the  expression  "  I  did,"  instead 
of  "  I  did  not." 


161 

They  say  that  the  "note  from  W.  C.  Houston  of  Sept. 
20th,  to  Dr.  Kunmey,  was  not  published  in  the  statement, 
because  it  Avas  never  presented  to  the  vestry."  This  seems 
to  me  to  be  wide  of  the  point.  ^J'here  were  other  letters 
published  Avhich  were  not  presented  to  the  vestry,  if  my 
memory  serves  me. 

I  now  come  to  this  allegation  of  the  complainants,  on 
p.  83  of  the  "additional  "statement,"  as  follows;  "The 
tabular  statement  of  collections  made  on  p.  29  of  statement 
of  vestry  is  correct.  It  professed  to  give  only  the  average 
of  the  regular  annual  stated  collections  for  certain  specified 
objects,  and  not  to  include  any  special  collections." 

JSTow,  may  it  please  the  Court,  if  you  will  simply  look  at 
this,  you  will  see  that  it  is  a  very  unfair  statement.  I  hope 
my  friend  will  not  consider  me  as  giving  him  personal 
abuse. 

Mr.  Yail.     Oh,  no  ;  we  are  used  to  it. 

Mr.  Harris.  I  should  hke  to  ask  what  any  person  would 
imagine  to  be  the  facts  of  the  case  upon  reading  the  tabulated 
statements  on  page  39  of  the  complainants  book — statements, 
which  could  have  and  did  have  only  this  object  in  view, 
namely,  to  show  how  the  church  had  gone  down  in  its  mis- 
sionary powers  and  interest,  missionary  interest  in  everything 
connected  with  this  matter  of  contributions,  especially  con- 
tributions to  the  "  Evangelical"  Societies. 

I  think  that  any  fair  minded  person,  upon  taking  up  that 
pamphlet  and  looking  at  that  tabulated  statement  of  contri- 
butions, and  seeing  the  average  for  five  years  contrasted 
with  the  contributions  for  the  year  1871,  would  naturally 
suppose  that  the  compUinants  had  in  fairness  given  all  the 
sums  which  had  been  contributed  from  the  general  collec- 
tions of  the  church,  or  from  tliose  individuals  who  were 
attached  to  tlie  church,  and  tliat  the  contrast  between  the 
average  of  the  five  years  and  the  sums  given  in  1871,  fairly 
and  honestly  represented  the  exact  amount  of  falling  off ; 
made  a  fair  exhibit  of  the  "  paralysis"  complained  of.  For 
instance,  seeing  that  for  Foreign  Missions  the  average 
annual  contributions  of  the  five  years  was  $1,058.71,  while 
for  the  year  1871,  the  amount  was  only  $41.82,  the  ordinary 
fair  minded  reader,  upon  whom  the  impression  of  "  paraly- 
sis" was  intended  to  be  produced,  would  not  stop  to  say  or 
to  think,  "perhaps  tliey  intended  to  exclude  some  particu- 
lar contribution  or  especial  collections,  and  it  is  that  which 
makes  the  sum  for  1871  ap[)ear  so  small."     lie  would  not 

11 


162 

stop  to  think,  "and  perhaps  they  only  counted  one  collection, 
and  took  no  note  of  others."' 

No,  sir,  he  would  look  at  the  $41.82  just  as  it  was  meant 
by  these  gentlemen  to  be  looked  at,  as  the  total  of  contribu- 
tions for  Foreign  Missions  for  the  year  1871,  in  this  "  par- 
alyzed" parish.  I  must  confess  that  when  I  heard  that 
tabulated  statement  read  for  the  first  time  (as  I  could  not 
then  suppose  such  manipulation  of  figures  possible),  a  hor- 
rible fear  and  dread  overwhelmed  me.  I  thought  to  myself: 
"  Here  have  I  been  asked  to  be  the  advocate  of  this  gentle- 
man who  is  charged  with  killing  his  parish,  and  it  does 
certainly  look,  in  these  particulars  at  least,  as  if  he  had 
gotten  it  into  a  comatose  condition, — nearly  dead," 

And  yet,  sir,  these  gentlemen  have  actually  done  this 
thing,  namely:  they  have  ignored  everything  except  one 
collection  that  was  taken  for  Foreign  Missions  in  the  year 
1871.  They  have  ignored  utterly  a  collection  made  earlier 
in  the  sariie  year,  and  which  amounted  to  more  than  $800  ; 
they  have  ignored  other  contributions  for  the  same  object, 
from  the  Sunday  Schools,  which  raised  the  amount  to  more 
than  $900 ;  and  they  have  also  ignored  a  contribution  for 
the  same  object  from  two  persons  claiming  pre-eminently  to 
represent  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  which  contribution 
amounted  to  $1,100.  They  have  actually  ventured  to  put 
before  you.  in  their  printed  statement,  this  sum  of  $41.82,  as 
the  total  for  Foreign  Missions,  contributed  from  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  in  the  year  1871,  and  point  exultingly 
to  it  as  an  evidence  of  "  paralysis ;"  while  the  official  record, 
the  "  Spirit  of  Missions"  acknowledges  for  that  year  the 
receipt  of  over  $2,000! 

But  if  they  claim  that  the  special  contribution  of  $1,100 
should  not  be  counted  for  1871,  we  have  a  right  to  claim 
that  such  contributions  shall  not  be  counted  in  the  average 
for  the  five  years,  a  time  during  which,  for  ulterior  purposes 
there  was  no  reason  for  excluding  special  contributions  from 
the  record  of  the  church's  gifts  ;  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact 
were  counted  in  as  making  up  that  average. 

But  whichever  way  they  put  it,  it  makes  against  them. 
If  all  contributions  w^ere  counted  in  making  the  average 
for  the  five  years,  then  all  contributions  must  be  counted 
for  1«71  ;  and  from  a  careful  study  of  the  receipts  in 
the  "Spirit  of  Missions,"  I  can  tell  these  gentlemen  that 
if  all  contributions  are  counted  in  making  the  average  for 
the  five  years,  they  have  not  done  themselves  justice.     Their 


163 

avorag'c  is  liiglicr  tlian  thoy  make  it  ont  to  be  ;  but  even 
then,  not  equal  to  the  coiiti'il)utiou  for  1871. 

If,  on  the  other  baud,  they  claim  that  this  special  con- 
tribution shall  not  be  counted  for  1871,  then  we  have  aright 
to  claim  that  such  shall  not  be  counted  as  making  up  the 
average  of  the  live  years,  and  if  such  contributions  be  not 
counted,  either  in  1871  or  for  the  five  years,  then  the  aver- 
age falls  far  below  what  they  make  it,  and  not  by  any  means 
equal  to  the  contributions  tor  1871,  even  excluding  this  sum 
of  $1,100.  They  may  take  either  horn  of  the  dilemma  they 
choose. 

They  have  dealt  with  figures  in  the  same  way  when  con- 
nected with  the  contributions  to  the  Episcopal  Hospital. 

I  suppose  every  rector  knows  that  there  is  scarcely  an  oc- 
casion of  collection  in  the  church  for  a  specific  object,  when 
there  is  not  some  person  who  has  come  unprepared  to  give  ; 
and  there  are  always  some  present,  who,  stirred  up,  perhaps, 
by  the  appeal  of  the  rector  for  the  specific  object,  do  not 
put  as  much  money  as  the}'-  intend  to  give  upon  the  plate, 
but  who  send  it  in  a  contribution  afterwards.  Is  not  that 
fairlj^  to  be  counted  as  a  contribution  from  that  parish  ?  It 
is  not  credited  to  any  other,  certainly.  !Now,  if  we  take 
such  contributions,  into  consideration,  as  we  have  a  right  to 
do,  the  su'm  contributed  to  the  Episcopal  Hospital,  in  1871, 
from  Christ  Church,  rises  very  far  above  the  $65,  as  set  forth 
in  the  tabulated  statement,  and  reaches  at  least  $397,  ex- 
cluding Mr.  ISpencer's  contribution. 

So  also  of  the  collectious  for  the  "  Evangelical  Education 
Society." 

The  same  principle,  or  want  of  principle,  seems  to  run 
through  their  whole  exhibit.  It  really  seems  as  if  in  defi- 
ance of  facts,  they  have  been  making  up  accounts  to  suit 
themselves, 

Kow,  may  it  please  the  court,  let  us  pass  to  another  mat- 
ter. We  find  on  page  34  of  the  "  additional  statement"  of 
the  complainants,  read  this  afternoon,  the  following: 

"  As  to  the  gross  personal  attack  upon  Mr.  Charles  Spen- 
cer, we  need  only  refer  to  his  nearly  sixteen  years'  connec- 
tion with  Christ  Church  as  a  communicant.  On  becoming 
a  member  of  the  church,  he  was  informed  by  its  rector 
that  his  long  connection  with  an  Evangelical  denomination 
rendered  confirmation  unnecessary." 

I  should  say  that  this  was  much  worse    for  the   rector 


164 

than  for  Mr.  Charles  Spencer.  As  I  said  before,  in 
reference  to  tLis  matter,  we  are  not  going  into  causes, 
we  are  going  into  facts,  and  certainly  there  was  no  in- 
tention of  "  sneering."  Our  client  had  been  borne  upon 
very  hard,  and  we  wished  to  see,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
what  elements  were  engaged  in  this  opposition.  We  had  a 
right  to  do  it ;  and  if  it  be  a  "  personal  attack,"  I  am 
sorry  for  it. 

Of  course,  if  a  gentleman  goes  to  his  pastor  expressing  a 
readiness  to  be  conlirmed,  and  his  pastor  says,  '•  never  mind 
that ;  it  is  not  necessary,"  he  would  naturally  take  his  pas- 
tor's word  for  it.  But  the  fact  remains  unchanged.  His 
pastor's  unfaithfulness  does  not  alter  his  ecclesiastical  status  ; 
and  I  can't  help  saying  that  such  a  pastor  ought  to  be 
ashamed  of  himself  for  thus  misleading  an  inquiring  member 
of  his  flock. 

I  hesitate  very  much  to  trespass  further  upon  the  time 
and  patience  of  the  Court,  as  the  hour  is  growing  late,  and 
I  shall  leave  to  my  colleague,  Mr.  Conarroe,  tlie  summing  up 
of  certain  points  upon  which  I  could  readily  enlarge. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  you  take  into  consideration  all  the 
allegations  made  by  the  complainants  against  the  rector, 
the  sum  and  substance  of  them  all,  unsustained  as  they  are 
by  any  proof,  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  parable, 
written  long  ago  by  one  w^ho  has  no  claim,  it  is  true,  to  be 
considered  ^'  an  Evangelical,  as  we  Low  Churchmen  under- 
stand it,"  but  whose  words  may  be  profitably  pondered  even 
by  such.     He  wrote,  Mr.  President,  as  follows  : 

"A  A\^olf  meeting  with  a  Lamb  astray  from  the  fold,  re- 
solved not  to  lay  violent  hands  on  him,  but  to  tind  some 
plea  which  should  justify  to  the  Lamb  himself  his  right  to 
eat  him.  He  thus  addressed  him:  'Sirrah,  last  year  you 
grossly  insulted  me.'  '  Indeed,'  bleated  the  Lamb  in  a 
mournful  tone  of  voice,  'I  was  not  then  born.'  'Then,' 
said  the  Wolf,  'you  feed  in  my  pasture.'  'Ko,  good  sir,' 
replied  the  Lamb,  'I  have  not  yet  tasted  grass.'  Again, 
said  the  Wolf,  'you  drink  of  my  well.'  'No,'  exclaimed 
the  Lamb,  '  I  never  yet-  drank  water,  for  as  yet  my  mother's 
milk  is  both  food  and  drink  to  me.'  On  which  the  Wolf 
seized  him  and  ate  him  up,  saying  :  '  Well,  I  wmvt  remain 
supperless,  even  though  you  refute  every  one  of  my  impu- 
tations.' " 

We  look  to  the  court  to  prevent  this  wholesale  supper. 


ARGUMENT   OF  MR.  CONARROE. 

May  it  please  the  Court:  My  colleague  has  discussed 
this  case  .so  fully  that  I  must  claim  your  indulgence  if  I 
seem  to  weary  you  with  any  repetition.  Unlike  my  friend 
on  the  other  side,  I  am  not  a  resident  of  Germantown,  nor 
connected  in  anyway  with  the  y)ari8h  of  Christ  Church  ;  nor 
have  I  the  advantage  of  knowing  anything  about  this  case, 
exce})t  what  has  come  to  my  knowledge  professionally.  My 
friend,  I  think,  has  overlooked  one  very  important  fact, 
namely,  that  the  complainants  must  make  out  a  sufficient 
case ;  though  perhaps,  from  his  point  of  view,  it  is  not  even 
necessary.  Indeed,  I  understand  him  to  assume  the  posi- 
tion that  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  anything  here  but  the 
mere  fact  that  a  controversy  exists  between  the  rector  and 
a  majority  of  the  vestry  of  Christ  Church,  and  that  then,  the 
fact  of  a  controversy  being  ascertained,  this  tribunal  is  power- 
less to  do  aught  than  recommend  the  resignation  or  dis- 
missal of  the  rector,  no  matter  what  the  controversy  is, 
no  matter  by  whom  it  Avas  originated,  or  who  is  in  fault. 
But  in  point  of  fact,  the  complainants,  whom  my  friend 
represents,  must  prove  their  case,  and  show  just  grounds  for 
a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between  the  rector  and  his 
congregation.  I  do  not  think  they  have  proved  anything 
resembling  a  case. 

We  might  have  demurred  to  the  entire  bill  of  complaint 
which  has  been  presented  before  you,  as  wholly  insufdcient 
to  authorize  any  interference  under  the  canon,  in  this,  that 
the  complainants  set  up  a  test  of  partisanship — mere  partisan- 
ship— as  a  ground  for  a  dissolution  ;  a  test  which  the  church 
at  large  could  never  recognize.  The  church  at  large  could 
certainly  never  admit  that  kfkewarmness  in  supporting  the 
interests  of  any  "  party"  in  the  church  should  be  a  ground  for 
turning  a  clergj'man  away  from  his  parish,  and  we  might 
have  rested  here.  But  we  felt  it  proper  that  the  cause  should 
be  fully  heard  upon  its  merits,  and  that  the  complainants 
sliould  be  met  on  their  own  ground,  well  knowing  that  these 
allegations  of  the  complainants  could  be  answered  and  fully 
disproved.  This  we  are  satistied  we  have  been  able  tho- 
roughly to  do. 

The  case  of  the  complainants  may  be  summed  up  in  a 
very  few  words. 

(165) 


166 

First,  they  charge  that  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  was 
organized  in  the  interests  of  the  "  Low  Church  party."  We 
admit  that  a  large  nunil)er  of  tliose  who  originally  con- 
nected themselves  with  this  Chnreli,  and  of  those  who  have 
been  since  connected  wii"h  it,  have  been  generahy  chissed 
as  Low  Churchmen.  But  we  also  contend  that  the  congre- 
gation at  present,  and  the  persons  who  support  the  Rev. 
I)r.  llumney,  are  still  to  be  found  among  those  gi^neruUy 
known  as  Evangelical  men,  and  Low  Churchmen.  So  much 
on  this  point. 

Again,  they  charge  that  the  Rev,  Dr.  Rumney  was  elected 
"unseen,  unheard,  unknown,"  upon  certain  representations 
made  to  the  vestry  by  two  of  their  number.  This  allegation 
we  have  fully  and  efiectually  replied  to  in  the  answer, 
where  it  is  clearly  shown  by  the  certificate  of  five  vestry- 
men, who  were  present  at  the  vestry  meeting,  that  the  rep- 
resentations, alleged  iu  the  statement  to  have  been  made, 
were  not  made,  and  that  certain  other  representations  of  au 
entirely  different  character  were  made.  But  iu  the  supple- 
mental statement,  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston  attempts  to  break 
the  force  of  this  certificate  by  the  very  insufficient  reply,  "  I 
do  not  recollect  of  saying  '  I  was  willing  to  vote  for  any  man 
endorsed  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Childs.' "  Now,  may  it  please  the 
court,  Mr.  Houston  may  not  recollect  saying  this,  but  five 
^gentlemen  testify  that  they  do  recollect  his  saying  so. 
They  say  they  can  distinctly  recollect  the  thing,  and  it 
makes  no  difference  at  all  that  he  does  not.  At  best 
his  testimou}^  is  merely  negative  proof.  Positive  proof 
always  outweighs  negative  proof,  and  the  weight  of  the  evi- 
dence is  in  the  proportion  of  five  to  one  against  Mr.  Hous- 
ton. Under  these  circumstances,  no  one  can  doubt  that  he 
used  the  expressions,  though  he  may  have  forgotten  them 
since.  You  are  bound  to  decide  according  to  the  weight  of 
the  evidence. 

The  printed  answer  shows  just  what  was  said  in  the 
vestry  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Rumney's  election,  and  what  was 
not  said.  It  was  then  said  that  he  was  "  Evangelical  in  his 
doctrine,  a  conservative  prayer  book  churchman,  and  not  a 
party  num."  That  he  is  now  exactly  what  he  was  then  de- 
scribed to  be  is  the  principal  burdeu  of  the  complaint  before 

The  complainants  further  sa}^  that  "  a  very  short  time 
served  to  show  that  Dr.  Rumney  was  not  an  Evangelical 


167 

man  as  we  Low  Churchmen  niiderstand  it,"  and  that  "  he 
was  not  willing  to  support  those  Evangelical  societies  which 
it  had  been  the  invariable  practice  of  Christ  CMiurch  to 
support.  Clergymen  tilled  the  pulpit  under  J)r.  Rumney's 
auspices,  in  his  exchanges  and  occasional  absences,  who  had 
never  before  addressed  the  congregation  of  Christ  Church, 
and  who  were  diiterent  entirely  in  their  views  from  their 
dearly  loved  preachers." 

As  to  the  Evangelical  status  of  Dr.  Rumney  it  is  only 
necessary  to  refer  to  one  letter ;  that  letter  is  from  the 
Bishop  of  this  Diocese.  The  whole  case  between  the  vestry 
of  Christ  Church  and  their  rector  was  presented  to  the 
Bishop  la:-t  summer,  and  he  decided  in  the  end  in  favor  of 
the  rector.  It  is  true  that  the  Bishop  first  wrote  advising 
Dr.  Rumney  to  resign,  but  that  was  because  he  had  then 
heard  only  one  side,  lie  subsequently  stated  that  if  he  had 
known  all  the  facts  which  were  afterwards  submitted  to 
him,  he  would  not  have  written  such  a  letter.  Ilis  first 
let'er  therefore  goes  for  naught,  as  nothing  can  fairly  be 
called  a  decision  which  is  made  before  hearing  both  sides  of 
a  case.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  this  matter  further, 
and  we  should  not  go  into  it  at  all  at  this  time,  but  for  the 
fact  that  it  has  been  already  brought  before  you,  unwisely 
I  think,  by  the  other  side.  The  Bishop's  final  determina- 
tion is  seen  in  his  last  letter,  that  of  September  30th,  1871. 
In  that  letter  he  declares  that  Dr.  Runiiiey  is  "free  from  all 
p)ersonal  or  canonical  reproach,"  and  stands  before  him 
"with  an  unimpeached  ministerial  record." 

But  it  is  alleged,  by  the  complainants  that  Dr.  Rumney  is 
not  an  Evangelical  man.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  the 
Bishop  of  Pennsylvania — a  decided  Low  Churchman — 
knowing  the  status  of  Dr.  Rumney;  having  recommended 
him  for  this  very  parish ;  having  heard  the  assertions  of 
the  complainants,  that  they  had  been  imposed  upon  and  de- 
ceived as  to  his  church  views;  would,  if  he  believed  there 
had  been  any  imposition,  deliberately  certify  that  the  gentle- 
man who  had  committed  the  imposition,  or  had  at  least 
become  a  party  to  it  by  refusing  to  resign,  was  free  from 
all  personal  or  canonical  reproach?  Ko !  The  Bishop  heard 
all  the  allegations  which  you  have  heard,  and  decided 
against  these  complainants.  The  complainaiits  have  thought 
fit  to  re-open  this  controversy,  and  to  a^tply  for  a  Board  of 


168 

Reference  under  the  ennon,  in  order  to  have  the  chance  of 
another  decision  hy  this  tribunal. 

As  to  the  clergymen  who  preached,  the  lists  furnished  in 
the  appendix  to  the  answer  shows  exactly  the  amount  of 
damage  inflicted  on  the  complainants.  The  names  tell  their 
own  story,  and  this  branch  of  the  case  needs  no  further 
criticism  from  me. 

The  most  serious  charge,  however,  which  has  been  made 
by  the  complainants,  is  that  since  Dr.  Rumney's  rectorship 
in  Christ  Church,  that  "once  flourishing  parish"  has  been 
"  reduced  to  a  paralyzed  condition."  The  utter  groundless- 
ness of  this  charge  is  amply  shown  in  the  answer.  My  col- 
league has  already  commented  on  most  of  the  points  arising 
under  this  head.  I  may  here  say,  that  the  statistics  of  col- 
lections, &c.,  which  are  set  out  in  the  answer,  were  prepared 
by  us  from  the  original  printed  reports  of  the  several  Evan- 
gelical Societies.  We  took  the  reports  which  covered  the 
particular  years  referred  to  in  the  complainants'  statement, 
and  extracted  from  these  reports  what  appeared  on  the  face 
of  them,  and  I  think  we  extracted  enough  to  show  that  the 
statistics  of  these  complainants  were  very  inaccurately  made, 
to  say  the  least. 

One  of  these  reports  was  that  of  the  Evangelical  Educa- 
tion Society,  of  which  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston,  one  of  the  com- 
l)lainant8,  was  and  is  the  Treasurer.  In  his  report  for  1871, 
he  credits  from  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  $58.95.  On 
another  page  of  the  same  report,  he  credits  moneys  received 
on  the  same  day  from  individuals  of  the  congregation, 
amountnng  to  $195.01.  'Now  who  are  these  individuals? 
They  are  Charles  Spencer,  R.  S.  Spencer,  C.  LeBoutillier  and 
J.  V\^.  Lewis.  In  the  report  of  the  Evangelical  Knowledge 
Society,  also,  the  individual  contributions  are  suppressed. 
They  were  from  Charles  Spencer  and  W.  C.  Houston.  You 
cannot  fail  to  have  noticed  that  the  very  persons  who  have 
combined  to  withhold  their  contributions  from  the  usual 
channels,  are  the  same  who  have  combined  in  this  unjust 
complaint  against  their  rector,  and  who  claim  that  the  col- 
lections have  fallen  off.  Why,  they  actually  have  the  assur- 
ance to  say  that  they  did  not  intend  that  their  contributions 
"■should  go  to  the  credit  of  Christ  Church,"  and  that  they 
have  the  right  to  contribute  through  any  channels  they  may 
see  fit.  Undoubtedly  they  have,  ordinarily  ;  but  they  have 
not  the  right  to  contribute  through  other  than  the  usual 


169 

channels,  and  then  clainn  that  "  the  collections  are  falling 
oif."  This  is  too  transparent  a  device.  Their  individual 
contributions  have  in  previous  years  been  counted  in  the 
general  aggregate,  and  on  every  principle  of  fairness  must 
be  so  counted  now. 

We  have  answered  that  the  complainants'  figures  are 
grossly  incorrect,  and  that  the  accounting  warden  must 
have  known  this.  We  said  :  "  The  accounting  warden,  at 
least  Mr.  Spencer,  through  whose  hands  the  moneys  of  the 
church  pass,  should  have  known  whether  the  financial  sta- 
tistics were  or  were  not  correct.  Strangely  enough,  his 
yearly  financial  statements,  which  are  carefully  preserved  in 
the  vestry  minutes,  from  1862  to  1869,  inclusive,  are  as  care- 
fully omitted  since  1869.  And  this  is  the  gentleman  who 
writes  to  Dr.  Rumney,  "The  committee's  only  object  is  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  the  church." 

The  vestry  minutes  are  now  before  you  ;  you  can  readily 
see  whether  this  statement  is  or  is  not  correct.  What  is'the 
reply  attempted  on  l^ehalf  of  the  com[)lainants?  Simply, 
that  "  the  warden  states  that  in  no  year  since  he  became 
warden  has  he  failed  to  present  to  the  vestry  his  yearly 
financial  statement,  dulj''  audited  by  the  proper  committee. 
After  it  has  been  presented,  it  becomes  the  property  of  the 
vestry,  and  the  warden  is  no  further  accountable  for  it. 
We  niay  add,  that  he  has  frerpiently  been  complimented 
upon  the  accuracy  with  which  the  accounts  have  been  kept." 

This  is  no  answer  to  the  plain  allegation  that  the  warden's 
yearly  statements  for  1870  and  1871  are  withheld  from  the 
vestry  miimtes,  or,  at  least,  do  not  appear  there.  These 
vestry  minutes  were  produced  for  our  inspection,  and  were 
handed  to  me.  Wliether  the  yearly  statements  were  taken 
out  of  the  books  immediately  before  their  production,  or 
whether  thej'  have  always  been  absent,  I  do  not  pretend  to 
say.  It  is  sufficient  to  know  that  the  warden's  statement 
appears  in  all  the  previous  years  from  1862  to  1869,  and 
tliat  it  does  not  appear  in  the  last  tw^o  years.  It  may  have 
been  presented  to  the  vestry  and  duly  audited,  but  it  has 
been  wdthheld  from  the  minutes,  from  the  rector,  and  from 
the  rector's  counsel.  In  view  of  the  stress  which  is  now 
sought  to  be  laid  by  the  complainants  on  the  financial  sta- 
tistics of  these  very  years,  the  absence  of  these  statements  is 
certainly  suspicious. 

As  to  the  dissatisfaction  in  the   times   of  the  Rev.  Mr. 


170 

Atkins,  referred  to  on  page  23  of  the  answer,  the  facts  are 
too  well  known,  and  are  too  capable  of  proof,  to  require  any 
sort  of  reiteration.  It  is  notorious  that  the  former  tin.ies  in 
this  parish  were  far  from  being  "  unrufHed."  In  fact,  one 
expression  made  use  of  by  the  complainants  in  their  supple- 
mental statement,  read  this  afternoon,  gives  the  key  to  the 
difficulty  Avith  the  former  rector.  They  say,  "  we  suppose 
every  man  has  the  right  to  make  or  withhold  his  benefac- 
tions when  and  where,  and  through  what  channels  he  sees  tit, 
and  that  no  other  party  on  earth  has  any  more  right  to  call 
in  question  his  conscientious  action  in  doing  what  he  will 
with  his  own,  than  he  has  to  call  a  man  to  account  for  voting 
according  to  his  conscience." 

N^ow,  it  so  happens  that  for  voting  according  to  his  con- 
science at  a  presidential  election  in  18G8,  the  former  rector 
was  required  to  leave  the  parish. 

Mr.  Price.     "Where  does  that  appear? 

Mr.  Oonarroe.  That  is  a  matter  of  public  history,  like 
the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

In  the  complainants'  supplement  a  letter  is  printed  from 
the  anonymous  Miss  Blank,  who,  in  company  with  the  other 
Miss  Blank,  undertook  the  work  of  getting  signatures  against 
the  rector  with  so  "  great  reluctance,"  but  who  was  soon 
"  convinced  that  it  was  a  necessity  ;  "  and  who  certifies  that 
no  misrepresentations  were  made  to  any  of  the  parties  called 
on,  but  that  everything  was  done  in  the  most  amiable,  and 
decorous,  and  thoroughly  honest  manner.  Kovv,  I  am  sorry 
to  say  anything  to  reflect  upon  any  ladj^,  but  unfortunately 
for  her  we  have  the  testimony  of  Mr.  b\  Mortimer  Lewis, 
Dr.  Rumney,  and  twenty-three  other  persons,  contradicting 
the  statement  in  this  letter.  These  twenty-three  persons  tell 
very  plainly  what  representations  were  made  in  order  to  get 
their  signatures.  And  I  may  add  here  that  it  is  a  moral 
impossibility  that  twenty-three  persons,  each  in  a  different 
place,  visited  unexpectedly  on  the  same  day  by  two  gentle- 
men, and  clearly  and  distinctly  giving  their  separate  state- 
ments in  their  own  words,  could  have  been  in  any  sort  of 
collusion.  What  did  they  tell  these  two  gentlemen  'i  Identi- 
cally the  same  story ;  and  they  could  not  well  have  done 
that  unless  that  story  was  entirely  and  exactly  true. 

The  complainants  reply  to  this  "  we  have  not  called  nor  do 
we  intend  to  call  upon  these  persons  to  question  them,"  and 
again,  "it  will  be  observed  that  the  precise  language  of  these 


171 

persons  is  not  professed  to  be  reported."  I^otlnnG;  of  the  kind 
will  l)e  observed,  msiy  it  please  the  court ;  just  the  conh-ary. 
We  do  profess  to  give  substantially  and  exactly  Avhat  they 
each  said.  The  notes  of  what  was  said  were  taken  carefully 
at  the  time  by  Mr.  F.  Mortimer  Lewis,  and  it  is  woiiliy  of 
remembrance  that  these  statements,  just  as  printed  in  the 
appendix  to  the  answer,  were  read  at  the  vestry  meeting  in 
Se})tember  last.  So  the  complainants  have  had  ample  notice, 
and  ample  opportunity  to  investigate  the  subject  had  they 
wished.  But  complainants  say  of  these  persons  "  They  pro- 
bably answered  the  questions,  the  precise  bearing  of  wliich 
they  may  not  have  understood."  Is  it  "prol)able"  that 
twenty-three  grown  persons  should  be  so  dull  of  comprehen- 
sion that  they  did  not  know  whether  they  were  or  were  not 
in  favor  of  their  rector  ?  Com])]ainants  again  say :  ''  They 
have  not  been  cross-examined  here ;  and  we  might  reject 
their  whole  testimony."  Well,  who  has  been  cross-examined 
here  ?  Nobodj^  It  was  agreed  that  the  pamphlets  on  each 
side  should  be  admitted  as  if  testified  to.  It  was  agreed 
that  we  sliould  dispense  with  oral  testimony.  If  want  of 
opportunity  for  cross-examination  is  so  fatal,  the  complain- 
ants' whole  case  will  fall  to  the  ground,  for  we  have  had  no 
opportunity  to  cross-examine  any  one  on  the  other  side.  I 
do  not  understand  the  principle  on  wliicli  it  is  assumed  that 
this  testimony  might  be  rejected.  I3ecause  these  persons 
might  readily  have  been  brought  here  ;  many  of  the  facts 
stated  could  be  proved  by  persons  now  in  this  room.  It  is 
trifling  with  the  court  to  use  such  an  argument. 

The  complainants  again  say:  "But  to  save  the  time  of  the 
Board  in  examining  the  witnesses  we  will  concede  that  there 
have  been  found  23  of  our  129,  who  on  being  ap[)lied  to  by 
the  rector  in  person,  have,  in  the  kindness  of  tlieir  hearts, 
not  had  the  firmness  to  tell  him  to  his  face  that  they  desired 
him  to  leave  the  Church."  That  is  to  say,  there  are  twenty- 
three  persons  on  the  other  side,  supporters  of  the  comi^ain- 
ants,  who,  wdien  they  are  inquired  of  by  Mr.  Mortimer  Lewis  > 
and  the  rector,  have  not  the  firmness  to  tell  the  truth! 
This  is  a  fatal  concession,  and  it  reall}^  concedes  the  whole 
case  as  far  as  the  list  of  signers  asking  the  rector  to  resign 
is  concerned.  We  contend  that  the  misrepresentations 
proved,  and  now  virtually  admitted,  vitiate  the  whole  docu- 
ment.    A  document  that  is  impeached  in  part,  as  you  well 


172 

know,  is  impeached  altogether.  You  cannot  separate  the 
bad  and  leave  the  good. 

But  this  original  paper,  asking  the  rector  to  resign,  which 
has  been  repeatedly  asked  for  by  him,  and  which  was  pre- 
pared in  August  last  has  never  been  furnished  to  him.  A 
copy  only  was  given.  The  original  has  not  been  submitted 
to  our  inspection  until  this  very  afternoon,  though  these 
gentlemen  knew  perfectly  well  that  this  was  to  be  the  last 
meeting  of  this  Board.  All  that  they  are  now  able  to  pro- 
duce is  this  paper  which  I  hold  in  my  hand.  This  paper 
contains  on  one  sheet  forty-two  names,  and  on  another  four 
names,  making  a  total  of  forty-six  names.  The^^  saj^  they 
have  omitted  to  bring  part  of  it!  Thus  the  129  names 
dwindle  down  to  46.  The  estimate  of  complainants'  strength 
in  the  congregation  given  in  the  respondent's  answer  was 
based  on  the  supposition  that  the  signatures  claimed  could 
be  produced.  Forty-six  names  are  all  that  are  produced  in 
evidence  before  you,  and,  as  this  case  is  now  closed,  no 
furthei"  paper  can  be  put  in  evidence. 

It  will  be  further  seen  by  an  inspection  of  this  original 
paper,  that  a  large  number  of  the  signatures  are  far  from 
being  genuine  ;  at  least  they  were  not  written  by  the  persons 
themselves.  In  a  number  of  cases  several  names  appear  to 
be  written  by  one  person.  Thus,  four  names  on  the  second 
page,  are  evidently  written  in  cne  hand,  and  with  the  same 
ink.  A  little  further  down  upon  this  page  are  two  names 
which  plainly  appear  to  have  been  written  by  the  same  per- 
son. A  few  lines  still  further  down  three  names  are  written 
by  one  person.  Now,  in  a  matter  so  serious  as  the  sending 
away  of  a  rector  from  a  parish  like  Christ  Church  (or  any 
parish),  is  a  document  which  is  gotten  up  in  this  reckless 
and  unfair  way,  and  which  in  many  cases  is  not  even  signed 
by  the  persons  themselves,  to  be  presented  to  this  court  of 
live  Presbyters  as  of  any  authority  ?  Boes  that  paper  really 
amount  to  anything  at  all?  I  submit,  clearly  not.  This 
court  must  determine. 

The  Hummary  in  the  answer,  showing  the  relative  strength 
of  the  friends  of  the  rector,  and  the  friends  of  the  present 
vestry,  or  rather  a  majority  of  the  present  vestry,  was  pre- 
pared from  tables  carefully  compiled  by  Mr.  H.  II.  Houston, 
rector's  warden,  a  gentleman  thoroughly  competent  to  do 
such  a  work,  and  one  whose  word,  as  every  one  knows,  is 


173 

beyond  question.  (To  ]\Ir.  Vail.)  You  do  not  intend  to  deny 
this  on  the  other  side  ? 

Mr.  Vail.     Certainly  not. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  We  have  based  our  figures  upon  Mr. 
Houston's  written  tables.  The  details  were  too  voluminous 
for  insertion  in  the  answer.  Credit  was  given  to  complain- 
ants for  all  the  names  appearing  on  what  purported  to  be  a 
copy  of  their  paper.  The  original,  it  seems,  fails  to  come  up 
to  the  copy.  But  Mr.  Houston  gave  them  credit  for  all  they 
claimed,  and  in  his  analysis  the  same  rule  is  applied  to  both 
sides,  in  estimating  the  number  of  persons  represented  by 
eacli ;  therefore,  it  is  equally  fair.  He  took  the  heads  of 
families  who  had  signed,  and  considered  them  as  reiiresent- 
ing  their  children  or  families.  He  did  not,  as  the  other  side 
seem  to  have  done,  go  to  the  Smith  family,  for  instance,  and 
say  let  Mr.  Smith  sign,  and  Mrs.  Smith  sign,  and  then  take 
all  the  seven  little  Smiths  who  can  write,  or  can  have  a  pen 
put  into  their  hands,  and  let  them  put  their  names  down  ; 
and  then  say  the  Smiths  count  nine.  And  then,  when  Mr. 
Brown  signs  on  the  other  side,  as  the  head  of  a  family,  he 
does  not  omit  to  count  Mrs.  Brown  and  all  the  eight  little 
Browns,  because  their  names  are  not  on  the  paper,  and  say 
the  Browns  count  one.  IS'o  !  he  counts  the  Smiths  as  nine, 
and  the  Browns  as  ten.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  a  mere  list  of 
names  furnishes  a  very  unreliable  index  to  the  views  of  the 
congregation,  even  if  these  names  are  all  signed  by  the  per- 
sons themselves  ;  which  is  more  than  can  be  said  of  those 
upon  the  complainants'  paper,  as  I  think  this  Board  w'dl  be 
fully  convinced  upon  an  inspection  of  it.  The  complainants 
have  signed  this  paper,  and  their  children  have  signed  it. 
The  rector's  friends  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  have 
any  other  than  grown  persons  sign  the  letter  asking  him  to 

remain.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  one  hundred  and  one 
names  on  the  rector's  paper  represent  a  much  larger  part 
of  the  congregation  than  is  represented  by  the  one  hundred 
and  twenty-nine  names  on  the  opposition  paper,  twenty-three 
of  which  names,  by  the  way,  are  now  admitted  to  have  no 
right  there.  Ihe  complainants  have  therefore  entirely  failed 
to  make  good  their  assertion  that  "they  represent  the  con- 
gregation in  the  fullest  possible  manner,"  and  it  will  be 
noticed  that  the  canon  speaks  of  the  pastoral  connection 
as  being  between  the  rector  and  his  parish  or  congregation. 
But  the  complainants  present  another  paper  for  the  cou- 


174 

siclerntion  of  this  Board,  and,  if  they  do  not  represent  a  ma- 
jorit}^  of  the  congregation,  they  chiini  to  represent  a  majority 
of  the  voters  of  two  j'ears'  standing.  They  say  nothing 
ahout  pew  owners  for  less  than  two  years,  who  are  equally 
entitled  to  3'our  consideration.  The  IStarement  says :  "Let 
these  gentlemen  remember  that  the  highest  number  of  votes 
is  fifty-nine,  then  let  them  listen  to  this  paper,  which  pledges 
a  full  majority  of  these  voters  to  choose  at  the  coming  Easter 
election,  a  vestry  which  shall  stand  agains^  Dr.  Rumney, 
not  nine  to  three,  but  twelve  to  none!"  Well,  what  is  the 
language  of  the  paper  ?  "  We,  the  undersigned,  who  will  be 
legal  voters  for  vestrymen  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown, 
at  the  next  Easter  election  hereby  declare  our  determination 
to  vote  for  a  vestry  who  shall  be  in  harmony  with  the 
action  of  the  present  vestry,  inasmuch  as  we  believe  the 
principles  of  the  present  vestry  are  in  accord  with  those 
upon  which  the  church  Avas  originall}''  established."  There 
is  nothing  in  this  paper  about  l)r.  Rumney  ;  nothing  about 
"•  twelve  to  none ;"  nothing  whatever  to  prevent  any  signer 
of  it  from  voting  for  Messrs.  11.  H.  Houston,  Kingston  and 
Pchaefter,  members  of  the  present  vestry  and  friends  of  the 
rector. 

Now,  as  to  some  of  the  signers  of  this  peculiar  document, 
which  certifies  the  result  of  the  election  in  advance,  Robert 
B.  Dunning  is  a  Presbyterian,  and  does  not  attend  Christ 
Church  ;  II.  W.  lleiskell  is  a  Presbyterian,  and  does  not  at- 
tend Christ  Church  ;  and  Charles  P.  Bayard  is  also  a  Presby- 
terian, and  does  not  attend  Christ  Church ;  while  George 
Nugent  is  a  Baptist  (an  elder,  at  that),  and  does  not  attend 
Christ  Church.  The  charter  of  the  church  provides  that  no 
one  shall  vote  for  vestrymen  who  is  not  a  member  of  said 
cliurch,  and  a  member  who  refuses  "  conforn;iity"  is  expressly 
disqualified  from  voting.  We  have  set  out  this  article  of 
the  charter  in  full  in  the  answer.  It  certainly  is  far  from 
modest  or  becoming,  therefore,  for  these  persons  to  assert 
that  they  will  vote,  and  how  they  will  vote.  Their  prefer- 
ences are  at  least  entitled  to  no  respect  from  this  tribunal, 
I  know  the  language  of  the  charter  has  been  frequently 
strained  to  a  great  extent ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  has  ever 
been  strained  to  the  extent  attempted  here.  A  man  certainly 
cannot  be  a  Baptist  Elder  and  a  member  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  at  the  same  time,  and  there  is  no  religious  body  in 
the   land  which  would  tolerate  such  officious  interference. 


175 

It  is  ,1  seniulal  that  such  a  question  should  ovon  he  ari^necl. 
That  a  inemher  ot'  another  religions  hody,  who  does  not  be- 
Heve  the  doctrines  of  the  Episcopal  Clmrch,  nor  conform  to 
them,  can  come  to  vote  at  a  vestry  election  with  the  avowed 
purpose  of  driving  a  rector  away  on  doctrinal  or  any  other 
grounds,  is  a  monstrous  proposition  and  a  glaring  impro- 
])ricty.  Even  Avith  these  unlawful  voters  the  complainants 
can  only  claim  thirty-two  out  of  iifty-nine. 

But  my  friend,  Mr.  Vail,  accuses  us  of  sneering  at  Presby- 
terians, and  Baptists,  and  Methodists.  I  concur  with  my 
colleague  in  saying  that  we  desire  to  do  no  such  thing.  I 
have  many  worthy  friends  among  each,  but  those  bodies  are 
not  on  trial  here.  What  we  do  "contend  for  is  that  Metho- 
dists and  Baptists  have  no  right  to  govern  tbe  Episcopal 
Church,  or  to  have  any  share  in  its  government,  so  long  as 
they  remain  Methodists  and  Baptists.  If  they  come  into 
the  Church  well  and  good.  They  have  the  same  legal  right 
to  their  opinions  that  we  have  to  ours.  We  do  not  dispute 
their  right  to  govern  their  own  religious  organizations  in 
their  own  way.  It  is  certainly  not  too  mucli  to  ask  from 
them  what  they  undoubtedly  expect  from  us.  They  would 
readily,  and  very  properly,  resent  any  interference  on  our 
part  with  the  status  of  their  ministers.  And  I  may  add 
here  that  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  religious  body  in  the  land 
in  which  the  position  of  a  minister  is  held  to  be  dependent 
on  the  will  of  a  majority  of  a  board  of  trustees,  or  body 
analogous  to  our  vestries.  The  Congregationalists  hive  the 
loosest  notions  of  the  ministerial  tie^  and  even  among  them 
a  majority  of  the  congregation  is  required  to  dissolve  the 
connection.  Among  the" Presbyterians,  I  understand,  the 
majority  of  the  congregation,  or  even  the  whole  congrega- 
tion, cannot  dismiss  without  the  consent  of  the  Presbytery. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  as  Mr.  Charles  Spencer  has 
been  referred  to  as  a  consistent  communicant  of  Christ 
church  for  sixteen  years,  though  unconfirmed,  and  it 
has  been  thought  altogether  slanderous  to  call  him  a  Metho- 
dist, I  will  quote  from  a  document  which  will  throw  some 
light  on  the  matter.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  Eifth  Annual 
Kcport  of  the  "  Church  Extension  Society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,"  with  a  liandsome  wood  cut  of  the  church 
at  Broad  and  Arch  streets,  upon  the  cover.  Tliis  report 
contains  a^  list  of  the  otHcers  and  managers  for  1871,  the 
very  year  in  which  Christ  Church  is  said  to  have  been  so 


176 

paralyzed.  In  the  list  of  "laympn"  who  are  mana2;era  of 
this  society,  I  find  the  name  of  Charles  Spencer.  The  con- 
stitution of  this  Society  requires  that  these  managers  shall 
all  be  "members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  Mr. 
Spencer  is  sufficiently  a  Methodist  to  be  one  of  the  managers 
of  this  Society.  I  do  not  think  it  exactly  fair,  therefore,  tc 
say  that  it  is  a  slanderous  accusation  to  call  him  a  Methodist . 
I  do  not  say  that  he  is  any  worse  for  being  a  Methodist.  It 
is  better  to  be  a  straighttbrward  Methodist  than  a  disloyal 
"  Episcopalian."  Whether  he  is  an  inconsistent  Methodist 
or  an  inconsistent  Episcopalian,  I  will  not  pretend  to  settle. 
-  There  are  several  other  ])oints  in  the  complainants'  case 
which  may  be  briefly  referred  to.  In  their  supplement  read 
this  afternoon,  they  say,  "The  present  vestry  have  never 
repudiated  any  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  but  are  faithful  adlierents  thereto,  and  propose  so  to 
continue.  Should  they  be  called  u[)on  to  select  another 
rector,  they  hereby'  declare  that  they  would  endeavor  to 
elect  one  whose  loyalty  to  its  doctrines  and  discipline  cannot 
be  doubted." 

Part  of  this  declaration  may  be  true,  in  one  sense.  The 
present  vestry,  as  a  vestry,  nmy  never  have  repudiated  any 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  But 
do  the  complainants  mean  to  say  that  no  member  of  the 
vestry  has  ever  repudiated  any  of  tlie  doctrines  of  the 
(Jhurch  ?  The  "  statement  "  before  this  Board  was  prepared 
or  signed  by  four  members  of  the  vestry.  It  is  "endorsed" 
by  live  others.  The  first  endorser — to  use  a  technical  expres- 
sion— is  Mr.  Thomas  H.  Powers.  Mr.  Thomas  H.  Powers  is 
the  proprietor  of  a  "  religious  "  paper  miscalled  the  "  Episco- 
palian." Has  that  paper  ever  re[)udiated  the  doctrines  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  ?  I  leave  the  question  for  this  Board 
to  decide.  I  think  it  is  very  well  known  that  that  })aper 
has  done  all  it  could  to  abuse  and  misrepresent  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  the  distinctive  doctrines  and  formulary  of  the 
Church.  It  is  a  matter  of  notorious  and  regretful  comment. 
That  newspaper  speaks  the  views  of  its  proprietor. 

Some  time  ago  a  paper  was  gotten  up  which  a  nnml)cr  of 
misguided  gentlemen  signed.  It  was  a  testimonial  of  sym- 
pathy to  a  person  in  Chicago,  Mr.  Cheney,  whose  princq^al 
distinction  was  that  he  was  a  law-bi-eaker,  and  iiad  been 
convicted  of  brcakins:  the  law  of  the  Church.     Amu  no-  the 


177 

pi2:ncrs  of  that  testimonial  may  be  found  Air.  Thomas  11. 
I'owers  and  Mr.  W.  C.  Houston.  How  the  signing  of  that 
testimonial  can  be  reconciled  with  the  statement  that  the 
complainants  have  never  repudiated  anj'  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  I  cannot  see.  And  these  are  the  gen- 
tlemen who  pledge  themselves,  if  you  will  only  give  them 
the  chance  to  elect  another  rector,  to  elect  one  whose 
'■•  loyalty "  to  the  Church  cannot  be  doubted  !  Whether 
tliey  would  have  any  difficulty  in  electing  a  new  rector  may 
perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that,  when  they  last  had  a 
rector  to  elect,  twenty-five  clergymen  wei-e  nominated,  nine 
vestry  meetings  were  held,  innumerable  ballots  were  had, 
and  out  of  the  whole  number,  as  the  vestry  minutes  show, 
they  could  only  agree  upon  the  Rev.  Mr.  Langford,  and  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Langford  declined.  The 
Rev.  Dr.  Rumney  came.  It  would  be  a  dangerous  experi- 
ment to  agitate  this  vestry  with  another  election. 

The  last  piece  of  testimony  to  which  I  will  refer  was 
submitted  to-day  in  the  sup})lcmental  answer.  It  is  there 
shown  that  when  the  collection  was  taken  up  in  Christ 
Church,  in  November  last,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the 
customary  yearly  deficiency  in  the  revenues  of  the  church — 
these  gentlemen,  who  are  complainants  here,  and  who  would 
liave  you  believe  that  they  are  the  principal  supporters  of 
the  church,  and  without  whom  it  would  immediately  go  to 
ruin,  contributed  less  than  §42  out  of  the  total  sum  of  $1,042, 
which  was  then  collected.  One  thousand  dollars  was  con- 
tributed by  the  friends  of  the  rector — and  tliis  furnishes 
tolerably  satisfactory  proof  that  the  rectors'  friends  are  in 
the  majority.  It  would  be  lamentable  to  suppose  that  the 
complainants,  if  they  represent  the  congregation,  as  they  say, 
in  the  fullest  possible  manner,  should  only  be  able  to  contrib- 
ute the  sum  of  forty-two  dollars  towards  the  deficiency  in 
the  expenses  of  the  "sanctuary"  for  whose  custody  they 
contend  so  ardently  1  Why,  it  is  only  an  average  of  four 
dollars  and  sixty-six  cents  to  each  of  these  wealthy  complain- 
ants, and  there  is  no  sort  of  proof  that  they  even  gave  that. 
We  are  only  conceding  it,  for  argument's  sake,  and  I  think 
we  show  very  clearly  that  the  support  of  the  Church  can 
scarcely  be  said  to  depend  on  the  complainants. 

The  greater  part  of  the  trouble  in  the  present  case,  and  in 
similar  cases,  arises  from  a  total  misconception  of  the  powers 
and  rights  of  vestries.  Instead  of  bein<>;  content  with  their 
12 


ITS 

leo;itimatG  flutics,  in  pnpervising  the  temporal  affairs  of  the 
parish,  some  vestrymen  are  actually  inclined  to  think  that 
the  vestry  may  organize  itself  into  a  sort  of  court  to  ti-y 
the  real  or  supposed  delinquencies  of  the  rector.  They 
reverse  the  relative  positions  of  teacher  and  taught,  This  is 
evidently  the  idea  of  the  complainants.  They  say  "it  began 
to  be  discovered  that  the  vestry  did  not  govern  the  Church." 
It  would  be  unfortunate  if  they  did.  llow  and  where  did 
they  get  any  authority  to  govern  it?  Their  business  is 
simply  to  manage  the  temporal  ati'airs  of  the  parish. 

Webster  delines  vestry  to  be  "  a  committee  chosen  an- 
nually by  the  parish,  who,  in  conjunction  with  the  church 
wardens,  manage  its  temporal  concerns." 

Judge  Iloifman  quotes  from  Lord  Stowell  to  show  that  the 
office  of  church  warden  (which  is  higher  than  that  of  mere 
vestryman)  "  is  an  office  of  observation  and  com|)laint,  but 
not  of  control  with  respect  to  divine  worship."  That  "  if  the 
minister  introduces  any  irregularity  into  the  service  they 
have  no  authority  to  interfere,  but  may  complain  to  the  ordi- 
nary." Law  of  Church,  268.  This  does  not  look  like  "  gov- 
erning the  Church."  They  may  complain  to  the  ordinary. 
In  this  case  they  have  so  complained.  Their  complaint  was 
held  groundless. 

A  rector  holds  his  office  during  good  behavior.  The  doc- 
trine that  because  the  body  which  elects  or  appoints  may 
therefore  dismiss,  will  not  stand  the  test  of  investigation. 
A  Diocesan  Convention  elects  a  Bishop,  but  cannot  dismiss 
him.  When  our  judges  were  appointed  (during  good  behav- 
ior) b}^  the  governor,  the  power  of  appointniont  did  not 
im])ly  the  power  to  dismiss. 

The  first  canon  on  the  subject  of  "  Differences  between 
ministers  and  their  congregations,"  was,  like  many  other 
bad  laws,  passed  to  meet  a  particular  case.  The  case  pro- 
vided for  was  that  of  Dr.  Ogden,  of  JSTewark,  New  Jersey, 
wdiere  the  ground  of  difference  was  "  a  tendency  to  doctrines 
and  practices  inconsistent  with  the  principles  and  rules  of 
the  Churcli,  an  overbearing  conduct,  and  an  assumption  of 
control  in  temporals."  The  last  was  a  direct  intrusion  upon 
the  domain  of  the  vestry.  Bishop  AVhite  said  of  it,  "  the 
canon  deserves  the  name  of  a  necessary,  but  it  is  hoped  only 
a  temporary  evil.  The  apprehension  of  the  abuses  of  it  have 
l)een  verified."  The  Bishop  questioned  its  principle  on  the 
'  ground  that  there  should  be  no  severance  from  a  pastoral 


179 

charge  except  ns  the  result  of  a  trial  for  alleged  misconrluct 
which  is,  "-most  agreeable  to  the  idea  of  exalting  law  aljove 
will."  Iloff.  L.  0.  322.  The  coinphiiiiants  here  wish  to  re- 
verse this  principle  and  exalt  will  al)Ove  law. 

This  canon  of  l.'S04  was  followed  by  a  canon  of  1808, 
which  imposed  a  penalty  for  the  dismissal  of  a  minister  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  The 
imposition  of  such  a  penalty,  as  is  well  settled,  plainly  im- 
plies that  the  act  itself  is  unlawful,  and  does  not  mean  that 
the  penalty  is  merely  a  price  to  be  paid  for  the  doing  of  the 
wrong.  Alitchell  v.  Smith,  1  Binney,  119;  Bartlew  v.  Vinor, 
Carthew,  25.  To  the  twenty-ninth  canon  of  1808  was  added 
a  clause  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  present  subject:  "It  is 
understood  that  the  church  designs  not  to  express  an  appro- 
bation of  any  laws  which  make  the  station  of  a  minister 
dependent  on  anything  else  than  his  own  soundness  in  the 
faith,  or  worthy  conduct."     Ilotfinan's  L.  C.  322, 

The  canons  of  1804:  and  1808  on  this  subject  were  substan- 
tially the  same  as  the  thirty-fourth  of  1832,  which  was  as 
follows  : 

"  In  cases  of  controversy  between  ministers  who  now  or 
hereafter  may  hold  the  rectorship  of  churches  or  parishes, 
and  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  such  churches  or  parishes, 
which  controversies  are  of  such  a  nature  as  cannot  be  settled 
hy  themselves,  the  parties,  or  either  of  them,  shall  make  ap- 
plication to  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese,  or  in  case  there  be  no 
Bishop,  to  the  convention  of  the  same. 

"  If  it  appear  to  the  Bishop  and  a  majority  of  the  Presby- 
ters convened,  after  a  summons  of  the  whole  belonging  to  the 
diocese,  or  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  to  the  convention,  or  the 
standing  committee  of  the  diocese  (if  the  authority  should  be 
committed  to  them  by  the  convention),  that  the  controversy 
has  proceeded  such  lengths  as  to  preclude  all  hopes  of  its 
favorable  termination,  and  that  a  dissolution  of  the  connec- 
tion which  exists  between  them  is  indispensably  necessary  to 
restore  the  peace  and  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  church, 
the  Bishop  and  his  said  Presbyters,  or  if  there  be  no  Bishop, 
the  convention  of  the  standing  committee,  if  the  authority 
should  be  committed  to  them  by  the  convention,  shall 
recommend  to  such  ministers  to  relinquish  their  titles  to  the 
rectorships  on  such  cc^nditions  as  may  appear  reasonable  and 
proper. 

"  If  such  rectors  or  congregations  refuse  to  com])ly  with 


180 

such  recomrnen  flat  ion,  the  Bishop  and  his  Preshy  tors  for  the 
convention  or  standiuo-  eoniniittee,  if  anthorized,  with  the 
aid  and  consent  of  a  Bisliop),  nia^',  at  their  discretion,  pro- 
ceed according  to  the  canons  of  the  church  to  sus})end  the 
former  from  the  exercise  of  ai\y  ministerial  duties  within  the 
diocese  or  State,  and  prohibit  the  latter  from  a  seat  in  the 
convention,  until  tViey  retract  such  refusal  and  submit  to  the 
terms  of  the  recommendation  ;  and  any  minister  so  suspended 
shall  not  be  permitted,  during  his  suspension,  to  exercise  any 
ministerial  duties  in  any  other  diocese  or  State." 

This  canon  was  repealed  in  1859,  and  from  that  time  until 
1871  there  was  no  canon  to  supply  its  place.  In  1871,  Canon 
4,  Title  II.  was  amended,  and  the  pi'ovisions  of  the  canon  of 
1832  were  re-enacted  with  some  modilications.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  second  section  of  the  amended  canon  under  which 
this  Board  of  Bresbj'ters  is  now  convened  : 

"  II.  The  five  Presbyters  thus  designated,  shall  constitute  a 
Board  of  Reference  to  consider  such  controversy,  and  if  after 
hearing  such  allegations  and  proofs  as  the  parties  may 
submit,  a  majority  of  the  Presbyters-  shall  be  of  opinion  that 
there  is  no  hope  of  a  favorable  termination  of  such  contro- 
versy, and  that  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between  such 
rector  or  assistant  minister  and  his  parish  or  congregation 
is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace  of  the  church  and  promote 
its  prosperity,  such  Presbyters  shall  recommend  to  the 
Bishop  that  sucli  minister  shall  be  required  to  relinquish  his 
connection  with  such  church  or  parish,  on  such  conditions 
as  may  appear  to  them  proper  and  reasonable." 

Under  this  amended  canon,  the  five  Presbyters  have  full 
jurisdiction  to  ascertain  : 

1.  What  the  controversy  is. 

2.  Whether  the  alleged  complaints  are  true. 

3.  If  true  whether  they  are  such  as  to  "  warrant  an  inter- 
ference under  this  canon." 

4.  Who  is  the  party  in  fault. 

5.  Who  is  the  party  applying  for  relief,  and  if  a  vestry, 
whether  that  vestrj-  truly  re[)resents  the  congregation. 

(J.  And  lastly.  Whether  (if  the  controversy  is  irreconcil- 
able) under  a  full  consideration  of  the  whole  case,  there  is 
just  ground  for  a  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  connection, 
"  between  such  rector  or  assistant  minister  and  his  parish, 


181 

or  congregation,"  as  necossarj  to  restore  the  peace  of  the 
church  and  promote  its  pros[)erity. 

Any  less  than  this  would  make  this  tril)nnal  the  veriest 
mockery  of  justice.  To  contend,  as  these  complainants  con- 
tend, that  the  court  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  causes  which 
led  to  the  diiferences,  or  with  the  merits  of  the  ease,  but 
is  merely  to  ascertain  whether  there  are  difterences,  and 
whether  the  complainants  say  they  will  not  be  reconciled, 
and  then  that  the  court  is  powerless  to  do  anything  but  de- 
cree a  dissolution,  is  to  contend  for  a  direct  reversal  of  the 
most  fundamental  principles  of  law  and  equity.  To  state  this 
monstrous  proposition,  is  to  show  its  unfairness  and  its 
absurdity. 

I.  "What  the  controversy  is,  appears  by  the  complainants' 
statement,  and  the  respondent's  answer. 

II.  Are  the  alleged  complaints  true?  If  they  are  not,  the 
case  of  the  complainants  falls.  At  the  conclusion  of  their 
"  statement"  they  expressly  say  (p.  29),  "•  our  narrative  is  now 
concluded,  and  you  have  the  case  before  you.  We  have 
followed  the  history  of  the  church  down  to  the  present  time, 
in  order  that  you  may  understand  fully,  on  what  grounds 
we  desire  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  relation  between 
Dr.  Rumney  and  the  parish  of  Christ  Church,  seeing  that 
we  prefer  no  charge  against  Dr.  Kumney  of  any  specitic 
default  as  rector,  we  have  attempted  to  show  that  the 
church  was  founded  for,  and  had  always  been,  an  Evangeli- 
cal Church,  that  Dr.  Kumncy  was  elected  under  a  misappre- 
hension and  misconception,  both  of  his  views  on  church 
politics,  and  of  the  opinion  of  his  nominators." 

Whether  these  complaints  are  true,  it  remains  for  this 
board  to  decide. 

III.  If  true,  are  they  such  complaints  as  warrant  an  inter- 
ference under  this  canon  ?  It  is  submitted  that  they  are 
not.  Defective  partisanship  cannot  be  just  ground  for  a 
dissolution  of  the  pastoral  connection. 

IV.  From  the  testimony  produced,  this  Board  of  presby- 
ters can  decide  who  are  the  parties  in  fault. 

V.  The  "parties  applying  for  relief"  under  this  canon  are 
a  majority  of  the  present  vestry,  and    this  tribunal    is    to 


182 

decide  whether  they  have  shown  that  the}'  faithfully  repre- 
sent the  eongregatiou. 

The  second  section  of  this  canon  sn_ys,  that  if  a  majority 
of  the  Presbyters  shall  be  of  the  opinion, -(fee.,  that  a  disso- 
lution of  the  connection  between  such  rector  or  assistant 
minister  and  his  parish  or  congregation  is  necessary,  &e. 
How  are  the  Presbyters  to  ascertain  whether  such  a  dissolu- 
tion is  necessary  without  having  explicit  proof  of  tlie  wishes 
of  at  least  a  majority  of  the  congregation  ?  The  complain- 
ants admit  the  force  of  this,  in  their  ••' statement,"  when  they 
claim  that  the  "  vestry  (meaning  their  portimi  of  it)  rep- 
resents the  congregation  in  the  fullest  possible  manner."  If 
they  do  not,  how  can  the  Board  of  Presbyters  decide  that  a 
dissolution  is  necessary?  The  vestry  may  inaugurate  these 
proceedings,  it  is  true,  but  the  final  question  to  be  passed 
upon  by  the  Presbyters  is  whether  a  "  dissolution  of  the  con- 
nection between  such  rector  or  assistant  minister  and  his 
parish  or  congregation  (not  tlie  vestry)  is  necessary  to  restore 
the  peace  of  the  church  (not  of  the  vestry) ''and  promote 
its  prosperity"  (not  the  prosperity  of  the  vestry).  The  rela- 
tion between  tlie  minister  and  his  congregation  is  permanent. 
He  is  called  the  rector  of  the  parish.  The  vestry  are  simply 
transient  oiiicers  elected  annually.  Accidental  circumstanc;es, 
or  a  trifling  majority  of  half  a  dozen  votes  on  a  false  issue, 
may  retain  them  in  office  a  year  or  two  after  they  have  ceased 
to  represent  the  real  constituency  of  the  congregation.  They 
are  but  acting  in  a  representative  flduciary  capacity,  and 
should  be  held  in  a  case  like  this  to  the  strictest  good  faith. 
But  it  may  be  argued  that  the  vestry  need  only  represent 
the  pewholders  of  "two  years'  standing."  But  the  canon 
does  not  provide  for  such  a  narrow  interpretation.  The 
monstrous  modern  inicpiity  of  property  in  pews,  is  not  taken 
into  account,  and  when  the  church  has  used  the  broad  word 
congregation  in  this  es[)ecial  canon,  it  caimot  with  any  candor 
be  urged  that  the  voice  of  the  congregation  is  only  to  be  ex- 
pressed according  to  the  forniul.ie  of  a  joint-stock  corpora- 
tion. 

VI.  Lastly,  this  Board  of  Presbyters  must  decide  (if  they 
find  the  controversy  irreconcilable)  whether  upon  a  full 
consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  whole  case,  there  is  just 
ground  for  a  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  connection  between 
sucli  rector  or  assistant  minister  and  his  parish  or  congrega- 


183 

tion,  and  that  such  dissolution  "is  necessary  to  restore  the 
peace  of  the  church  and  promote  its  prosperity,"  and  herein 
the  peace  of  the  whole  church  may  well  be  considered. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Vail,  has  quoted  very  freely  from  Bishop 
Alonzo  Potter,  a  Bisliop  for  whose  memory  1  always  enter- 
tain the  sincerest  respect.  It  strikes  me,  however,  as  a  little 
strange  that  the  complainants,  when  enumerating  the 
"  higidy  esteemed  fathers  of  the  church,"  who  have  pro- 
mulgated Evangelical  views  to  their  satisfaction,  should 
lefer  to  Bishops  AJcilvaine  and  Bedell,  of  Ohio,  Johns,  of 
Virginia,  Lee,  of  Delaware,  and  Eastburn,  of  Massachusetts, 
but  not  to  Bishop  Alonzo  Potter.  Tiiey  did  not  refer  to 
hirn  as  one  of  their  highly  esteemed  fathers. 

Mr.  Price.     I  suppose  that  was  because  he  was  not  living. 

Mr.  Conarroe.  They  refer  in  the  same  paragraph  to  the 
Rev.  Dudley  A.  Tyng.  lie  is  not  living.  lie  died  before 
Bishop  Potter,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Well,  the  complainants  now  quote  from  ji  letter  of  Bishop 
Potter,  advising  a  rector  to  resign.  We  do  not  know  the 
circumstances  of  this  rector's  case,  but  it  would  seem  to 
have  been  a  ease  where  money  matters,  principally,  were  in- 
volved. As  the  complainants  have  neglected  to  quote  from 
their  esteemed  father.  Bishop  Eastburn,  we  will  talce  the 
liberty  of  quoting  from  him.  The  case  of  the  Kev.  W.  P. 
Pickman,  decided  by  Bishop  Eastburn  in  1805,  is  directly 
iti  point  here.  The  principle  of  that  case  is  exactly  the 
principle  of  the  present  case.  Xhe  "  proprietors,"  as  they 
are  called,  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  iSalem,  Massachusetts,  were 
dissatisfied  with  their  rector,  and  at  their  annual  parish 
meeting  thev-  [>assed  a  resolution  that  the  interests  of  the 
parish  would  be  best  subserved  by  a  termination  of  the  con- 
nection between  them  and  their  rector.  This  resolution 
was  passed  by  a  vote  of  thirty-four  yeas  to  lifteen  iiays. 
The  rector  replied  that  the  proprietors,  while  assailing  him 
privately,  had  refused  as  a  body  to  bring  any  charges,  by 
meeting  which  he  could  defend  himself,  and  that  in  his 
opinion,  a  termination  of  the  connection  would  materially 
injure  the  interests  of  the  parish  and  of  the  rector.  Tiie 
"  proprietors  "  at  a  subsequent  meeting,  disclaimed  any  in- 
tention of  imputing  to  the  rector  any  wrong,  and  by  a  vote 
of  thirt3'-seven  to  eiolit,  requested  his  resignation.  The 
rector  declined  to  resign.  The  "  proprietors  "  then  de- 
clared the  pastoral  relation  dissolved,  and  appointed  a  com- 


184 

mittee  to  npply  at  once  to  the  Bisliop  for  liis  concurrence  in 
guch  dissolution. 

Tlie  language  used  by  these  "  projirietors"  is  almost  identi- 
cal with  that  used  by  the  present  complainants.  Tlie  com- 
plainants saj',  "  we  have  no  fault  to  iind  with  Dr.  Rumney. 
jS'one  at  all.  He  is  a  very  amial)le  man,  and  we  all  love 
him."  This  was  their  feeling  when  they  went  about  elec- 
tioneering for  a  ticket  pledged  to  turn  liim  out !  "  We  have 
no  specific  ground  of  com[)laint.  AVo  have  the  greatest 
atFection  for  him — at  a  distance.  We  are  all  law-abiding, 
peaceful  men,  faithful  adherents  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  — so  long  as  we  have  our  own  way." 

In  Mr.  Pickman's  case,  Bishop  Eastburn  decided  in  favor 
of  the  rector,  saying  that  the  proprietors  in  one  of  their 
resolutions  had  declared  that  they  had  "no  purpose  of  cast- 
ing any  im[)Uta':ion  upon  the  character  of  their  rector  in 
any  of  his  relations  as  a  man,  a  clerg3Mnan,  or  a  Christian." 
I  understand  the  case  here  to  be  similar,  and  that  the  com- 
plainants do  not  undertake  to  cast  any  imputation  upon 
the  character  of  their  rector  in  any  of  his  relations.  If  1  am 
wrong  I  would  like  to  know  it  now. 

Mr.  Vail.     We  do  not,  most  emphatically. 

Mr.  Conarrob.  Bishop  Eastburn  concludes  thus:  "This 
being  the  statement  of  the  proprietors  in  regard  to  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Pickman,  I  feel  that  I  should  do  a  great  act  of  injustice 
to  him,  by  concurring  with  the  action  of  the  proprietors.  I 
therefore  decline  so  doing."  If  the  example  of  this  esteemed 
father  in  the  church  had  been  followed  in  Pennsylvania  this 
Board  need  never  have  been  convened.  His  decision  is  a 
much  later  authority  than  the  decision  in  Dr.  Jarvis'  case, 
cited  by  our  friends  on  the  other  side.  The  fact  that  the 
amended  canon  of  1871,  was  not  in  force  makes  no  differ- 
ence at  all.  The  canon  is  8ul)stantially  the  same  as  that  of 
1804  and  1832,  exce[)t  as  to  the  Cv)mposition  of  the  tribunal. 
That  only  four  cas(>s,  since  If^OI,  can  be  found  where  a  disso- 
lution has  been  recommended  under  the  canon  is  pretty  con- 
clusive evidence  that  it  does  not  furnish  the  short  and  easy 
method  of  getting  rid  of  a  rector  which  the  complainants 
Avould  have  you  believe. 

The  powei-8  of  vestries  were  stronger,  if  anything,  in  1865 
than  now  under  this  Can(ni,  according  to  the  views  of  the 
gentlemen  who  were  delegates  to  the  last  General  Con- 
vention.    The  "  proprietors"  or  pew  owners  of  ISt.  Peter's, 


185 

Salom,  v\'ere  not  a  small  minority.  Tlie\-  were  a  lnr2;e  ma- 
jority ;  37  to  9.  They  requested  the  rector  to  resi<i;n,  and 
he  declined.  The  Bishop  said  to  concur  with  the  proprietors 
would  be  '•  to  do  a  great  act  of  injustice"  to  Mr.  Pieknian. 
It  is  for  this  Board  to  say  whether  it  would  not  be  equally 
unjust  to  Dr.  Runuiey,  to  recommend  his  resignation.  The 
o[)inion  of  Bishop  Wliittingham  in  Dr.  VauBokkelen's  case 
is  similar  to  Bishop  Eastburn's. 

The  proviso  to  the  first  section  of  the  amended  Canon  of 
1871,  is  broad  and  general.  It  is,  '■'■  Provided,  That  the  party 
or  parties  applying  as  above,  shall  first  give  the  Bishop  sat- 
isfactory assurance  of  compliance  with  whatever  may  be 
required  of  them  as  the  final  issue  of  such  proceedings." 
The  interpretation  claimed  for  this  proviso,  on  behalf  of 
complainants,  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  its  plain  words. 
The  bargain  is  not  to  be  all  on  one  side,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  see  on  what  ground  it  can  be  urged  that  the  Board  of 
Presbyters  cannot  impose  "any  conditions  whatever."  Tlie 
Canon  provides  for  a  decision  either  way.  Nothing  could  be 
fairly  called  "  la\V"  which  did  not.  What  is  the  use  of  re- 
quiring from  the  parties  applying,  "satisfactory  assurance  of 
a  compliance  with  whatever  nuiy  be  required  of  them,''  if 
nothing  can  be  required?  If  the  Board  has  power  to  say 
that  a  sum  of  money  shall  be  paid  if  the  rector  is  obljiged  to 
leave,  have  they  no  power  to  recommend  "  any  conditions 
whatever,"  if  they  think  lie  should  stay  ?  JSTothing  is  more 
common  in  law  than  for  unruly  parties  to  be  bound  over  "to 
keep  the  peace."  If  this  tribunal  should  decide  against  the 
complainants,  they  can  recommend  any  conditions  which 
may  properly  attach  to  the  subject  matter.  If  they  believe 
them  to  be  aggressors,  the  least  they  can  do  is  to  '•  recom- 
mend "  that  they  retire  from  the  vestry  and  cease  their  un- 
seemly strife.  If  the  complainants  do  not  intend  to  keep 
their  pledge  of  "  compliance  with  whatever  nuiy  be  required 
of  them,  as  the  final  issue  of  such  proceedings,"  that  is  a 
nuxtter  with  which  this  tribunal  has  nothing  to  do.  Con- 
ditions may  be  imposed,  whether  they  are  aftei' wards  evaded 
or  not. 

Let  us  applv  the  principle  of  what  I  may  call  compulsory 
dissolution,  contended  for  on  the  other  side,  to  another  case. 
Take  the  case  of  the  oldest  Presbyter  in  this  Diocese — the 
beloved  and  respected  rector  of  St.  James's  Church.  It  is 
but  a  short  time   since  St.  James's   couo-retcation   removed 


186 

from  ttjeir  old  location  on  Seventh  street  to  the  corner  of 
Twenty  second  and  AValnut  streets.  Tliey  had  bulk  a  new 
and  handsome  Church,  larger  than  the  old  one.  iS^'ow  pews 
were  put  in,  and  these  pews  were  sold.  Suppose  Mr.  Thomas 
11.  I'owors,  and  Mr.  Charles  Spencer,  and  Mr.  W,  C.  Houston, 
and  a  sutHcient  number  of  their  friends,  had  gone  u[)  to  St. 
James's  Cluirch,  and  had  bought,  if  you  plejise,  a  majority 
of  the  pews.  Suppose  they  should  tlien  say  "  we  are  not 
satisfied  with  Dr.  Morton.  It  is  true  he  has  been  rector  of 
this  parish  for  forty-two  years,  but  we  cannot  help  that. 
He  is  not  '  an  Evangelical  man  as  we  Low  Churcbmeii 
understand  it.'  He  is  an  Evangelical  man  as  most  sensible 
people  understand  it,  but  not  as  we  understand  it.  We 
sympathize  with  Mr.  Cheney,  and  young  Mr.  Tyng.  Yv^e 
take  the  Episcopalian  and  cannot  stand  Dr.  Morton.  He 
must  go."  Application  is  made  under  this  pernicious  canon 
for  a  Board  of  Presbyters.  Such  a  Board  is  duly  convened. 
These  men  come  before  it,  and  urge  tlie  same  reasons  for  the 
renioval  of  Dr.  Morton  which  they  now  urge  for  the  removal 
of  Dr.  Eumney,  and  say  that  the  Board  cannot  go  into  the 
merits  of  the  case,  that  there  is  "a  controversy,"  and  that 
Dr.  Morton  must  be  dismissed  from  his  church.  The  very 
statement  of  such  a  proposition  is  monstrous.  It  is  as  ridicu- 
lous as  it  is  monstrous.  The  Canon,  bad  as  it  is,  was  not 
passed  by  a  convention  of  the  "  Low  Church  party,"  but  by 
the  General  Convention  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States. 
Can  any  one  for  an  instant  suppose  that  the  General  Conven- 
tion meant  that  Canon  to  be  used  to  foster  disloyalty  to  the 
Church — to  be  used  as  a  sword  against  the  clergy,  when  it 
was  said  in  the  debates  that  it  was  needed  for  the  protection 
of  the  clergy — and  that  disol)edience  to  the  behests  of  a 
party  should  be  ground  for  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral 
connection  ? 

Majorities  make  no  di (Terence.  The  question  is  one  of 
right  and  wrong,  ami,  if  a  congregation  should  be  unani- 
mous in  the  wrong,  that  would  be  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  be  taught  that  there  is  a  higher  power  than  the 
will  or  whim  of  the  congregation.  The  Clnirch  is  not  a 
body  of  congregationalists  ;  bat  is  a  body  governed,  or  sup- 
posed to  be,  by  general  laws.  In  the  [)re3ent  case,  however, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  large  majority  of  this  congre- 
gation lieartily  sustain  their  rector.  The  controversy  here 
is  not  really  one  between  the  vestry  and   the  liector;  but  it 


187 

is  a  controversy  between  fi    majority  of  the  vestry  and   a 
majority  of  the  congregation. 

]n  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  this  "controversy"  has 
originated  with  and  has  been  fomented  and  kept  alive  by  a 
very  few  individuals  in  the  congregation  of  Christ  Church. 
They  can  readily  be  selected  even  from  the  small  nuiiiher  of 
signers  whose  names  are  attached  to  the  statement.  They 
liave  made  up  in  zeal  what  they  have  lacked  in  numbers. 
They  are  the  persons  who,  having  started  a  most  unjustifi- 
able warfare  upon  their  rector,  and  while  statements  of  the 
most  unfounded  and  damaging  character  have  been  made 
by  them  in  the  parish,  are  compelled,  when  they  come  before 
this  Board  of  Presbyters,  to  admit  that  they  can  "  prefer  no 
specific  charges  of  default  against  Dr.  Rumnoy  as  rector," 
and  w^ho  yet  point  to  the  very  disturbance  they  have  created 
as  a  reason  for  that  rector's  dismissal.  They  have  withheld 
that  hearty  aid  which  their  official  positions  demanded  for 
the  parish,  and  yet  in  spite  of  their  opposition,  the  parish 
is  shown  to  have  prospered  greatly  under  the  new  rector. 

The  attendance  at  Christ  Church  never  was  greater  than 
at  the  present  time,  and  the  regular  revenues  of  the  church 
never  were  larger.  To  recommend  a  severance  of  the  pas- 
toral connection,  would  be  sim[)ly  to  further  the  designs  of 
those  who  have  been  disturbing  the  church's  peace.  It 
would  be  to  punish  the  innocent,  and  to  reward  the  guilty. 
Such  a  course  would  be  an  encouragement  to  insubordination 
and  strife  ;  and  such  cases  as  this,  instead  of  being  rare — for 
I  am  happy  to  believe  that  this  is  the  first  case  in  this  diocese 
in  fifty  years,  at  least — would  become  lamentably  frequent. 
We  appeal  with  confidence  to  the  sober  judgment  of  this 
Board,  to  protect  the  rights  of  this  rector  and  those  of  his 
parishioners,  from  the  unjustifiable  assault  made  ou  them  by 
a  few  discontented  individuals. 


ARGUMEXT  OF  ^IR.  PRICE. 

;Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board :  The  discus- 
sion of  this  case  has  been  already  long  enough  to  weary  you, 
and  I  will  therefore  make  my  contribution  to  it  as  short  as 
the  case  will  admit  of. 

The  case  to  be  considered  by  you,  as  it  is  derived  from  the 
pamphlets  and  papers  which  you  have  received  as  evidence, 


188 

may  be  thus  stated:  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  was 
erected,  and  carried  on  to  the  close  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Atkins 
ministry  there,  in  the  interest  and  for  the  use  of  a  congrega- 
tion of  Episcopalians,  who  adhere  to  what  is  known  as  Low 
Church  polity.  Then  came  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the 
resignation  of  Mr.  Atkins  ;  and  after  some  months  of  dela}^, 
and  sundry  ballotings  for  a  new  rector,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rum- 
ney  was  chosen.  That  choice  was  made  under  a  mistake. 
It  is  but  just  to  Dr.  Rumne\^,  however,  to  say,  that  so  far  as 
we  have  been  informed,  he  did  not  cause  the  mistake.  There 
was  a  misunderstanding  of  Dr.  Rumney's  views  of  church- 
manship  when  he  was  elected  bj^  the  vestry,  and  in  that 
way  tliey  chose  a  rector  whose  views  did  not  coincide  with 
their  own,  or  with  those  of  a  number  of  the  congregation. 
In  this  respect  the  choice  was  an  unfortunate  one,  for  it  soon 
became  apparent  that  with  the  rector  for  one  system  of 
church  polity,  and  two-thirds  of  the  vestr3mien  and  a  large 
number  of  the  congregation  (to  say  the  least  of  it),  clinging 
earnestly  to  a  different  system,  they  could  not  harmonize. 
As  soon  as  they  came  to  understand  each  other  and  each 
other's  position  in  this  respect,  a  ditference  arose  between 
them ;  the  ditference  grew  into  a  controversy,  and  it  so  re- 
mains to  this  day. 

Such  is  the  substance  of  the  case  to  be  considered  and 
dealt  with  by  this  Board  of  Reference.  I  do  not  care  to 
look  farther  into  the  details  of  it  at  present ;  for,  as  I  view 
the  case,  they  are  for  the  purposes  of  your  limited  inquiries 
under  the  canon,  (piite  immaterial. 

Before  jjroceeding  to  speak  of  the  difference  itself,  let  me 
say  that  the  action  of  the  vestry  in  this  business  has  been 
sharply  criticized  here,  and  there  seemed  to  be  a  disposition 
to  censure  individual  members  of  the  vestry,  beyond  either 
the  necessities  of  the  case,  or  the  true  scope  of  the  facts  in- 
volved. I  shall  ask  this  Board  to  look  carefully  into  the 
])roceedings  of  the  vestry,  and  then  answer  to  themselves 
what  better  they  could  have  done  without  yielding  their  in- 
dividual status  as  churchmen  ?  When  the  ditierence  arose, 
the  vestry  went  to  the  Bishop  and  consulted  with  him  about 
it.  What  better  could  they  have  done?  Mr.  W.  C.  Hous- 
ton's statement  of  that  interview  was  read  this  afternoon, 
and  you  learned  from  it  that  those  of  the  vestrymen  who 
consulted  the  Jiishop,  were  informed  by  him  that  he  could 
not  interfere  in  the  case  officially,  because  his   hands  had 


189 

then  recently  l)een  tied  by  a  docis'on  of  a  civil  court ;  l)nt 
that  lie  would  -write  a  private  letter  to  Dr.  Eumney  and  ad- 
vise him  to  resigu.  And  at  a  subsequent  interview,  the 
Bishop  informed  one  or  more  of  the  vestry  that  he  had 
written  and  sent  such  a  letter  to  Dr.  Rnmney.  The  vestry 
then  of  course,  believed  that  they  had  the  countenance  of 
the  Bishop,  and  were  encouraged  thereby.  But  it  ajipears 
now,  that  after  Dr.  Rnmney  rereivcd  the  letter  of  the  Bishop, 
the  clerg}'  of  Germantown  united  in  a  request  that  he  would 
withdraAV  his  advice  to  Dr.  Rumney  to  resign  tlie  rector- 
ship, and  the  Bishop  did  withdraw  it ;  but  the  vestry  were 
not  notified  of  the  change.  All  this  preceded  the  corre- 
spondence between  Dr.  Rumney  and  the  Bishop,  printed  in 
the  answer ;  and  although  we  have  not  been  favored  with 
the  previous  correspondence,  it  is  admitted  to  have  been  of 
the  tenor  stated.  Then  from  the  time  at  which  the  Bishop's 
advice  was  withdrawn,  the  rector  and  vestry  were  at  cross 
purposes.  The  Bishop  acted  in  such  a  manner  that  each  side 
felt  assured  of  his  favor.  Is  there  any  reason  for  wonder 
then,  that  the  ditierence  between  vestry  and  rector  grew  in 
its  proportions  ?  And  if  it  did  so  grow,  do  not  censure  the 
vestry,  or  any  members  of  it,  for  that. 

Then  you  come  to  the  election  on  Easter  Monday  last. 
The  friends  of  Dr.  Rumney,  apparently  coniident  that  a 
ballot  of  the  pewholders  would  set  all  things  right,  made 
their  ticket  for  vestrymen,  issued  their  circulars,  and  called 
upon  the  voters  to  support  Dr.  Rumnc}-.  But  in  this  they 
failed,  and  the  old  vestry  was  re-elected.  And  this  contro- 
versy which  has  been  sustained  for  more  than  a  year,  is  now 
pledged  for  a  year  to  come,  for  you  have  it  over  the  signa- 
tures of  the  gentlemen  who  prevailed  at  the  last  election, 
that  at  the  ap[)roacliing  Easter  they  will  elect  a  vestry 
unanimously  op})Osed  to  the  present  Rector,  if  there  is  no 
dissolution  of  the  pastoral  connection  in  the  meantime. 
These  are  some  of  the  characteristics  of  the  controversy  as  it 
stands  ;  and  really  there  appears  to  be  a  vigorous  difterence, 
well  kept  up. 

At  this  point,  and  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the  canon 
under  which  you  act,  let  me  ask — between  whom  does  this 
difference  exist  ?  Looking  to  the  possibility  that  contro- 
versies may  arise,  sometimes  between  the  vestry  and  the 
rector,  or  between  the  congregation  and  the  rector,  the 
canon  provides  what  proceedings  shall  be  had  in  either  case. 


190 

TiWt  tlicy  are  flistinct  cases;  and  hence  mncli  that  has  hecn 
introduced  into  this  case  is  not  ap[)licahle  to  it.  The  differ- 
ence in  this  case  is  between  the  vestry  and  the  rector.  I 
submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  a  diti'erence  between  the 
vestry  and  rector  of  a  church,  kept  alive  year  after  year, 
and  growing  in  its  proportions  as  time  rolls  on,  is  a  serious 
thing.  The  vestry  of  a  church,  is  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses the  corporate  church  itself,  and  hence  this  case  as- 
sumes much  the  appearance  of  a  controversy  between  the 
rector  and  the  church.  The  Bishop,  in  his  charge  read  in 
the  Diocesan  Convention  of  hist  year,  discussed  the  subject 
of  differences  between  vestry  and  rector,  and  the  manner 
of  treating  them.  Let  me  read  to  you  a  single  paragraph 
which  contains  his  view  of  the  relation  which  the  vestry 
bears  to  such  difference  or  controversy. 

"Ordinarily,  the  vestry  represents  in  all  things,  the  cor- 
poration, parish,  church,  congregation.  The  vestry  elect 
the  minister,  fix  his  salary,  and  are  responsible  for  his 
support.  Tiie  vestry  elect  deputies  to  the  I)iocesan  Conven- 
tion. Through  the  vestry  only,  when  there  is  no  rector, 
does  the  ecclesiastical  authority  communicate  with  the 
several  churches  or  parishes,  and  the  law  knows  of  and 
recognizes  Episcopal  Churches  or  parishes,  or  congregations, 
only  through  the  vestries  of  the  same,  upon  which  body  it 
would  serve  its  processes,  and  by  the  acts  of  which  body  itwS 
corporate  action  would  be  valid  and  legal.  Thus,  for  every 
l^urpose  of  parochial  action,  having  ret'eience  to  ecclesiasti- 
cal or  civil  law,  the  vestry  is  the  acknowledged  exponent, 
and  its  acts  are  esteemed  and  counted  as  tlie  acts  of  the 
parish  or  church." 

It  will  be  observed,  therefore,  that  tlie  controversy  in  this 
case  is  practically  a  controversy  between  the  church  and  the 
rector.  There  is  no  utility  in  attempting  to  shut  our  ej'es 
against  this  view  of  the  case;  and  for  the  purposes  of  tliis 
argument,  I  projiose  to  take  tlie  case  as  I  find  it,  and  deal 
with  it  accordingly.  - 

I  assume  then,  that  there  is  a  controversy — a  serious  and 
prevailing  controversj'',  between  vestry  and  rector,  at  Chri><t 
Church,  Germantown.  Our  friends  on  the  other  side  do  not 
agree  with  us  as  to  the  extent  of  it,  but  the  controversy 
must  be  conceded  to  exist. 

The  question  then  arises,  how  vsliould  you  deal  with  it 
under  the  canon  of  1871  ?     The  canon  provides  that  after 


191 

licnring  the  prooft  and  allegations  of  tlie  partio?(,  yon  are 
to  inciuire  wlietlior  there  is  a  hope,  and  by  that  is  meant,  a 
well  founded  hope,  of  a  favorable  termination  of  sneh  con- 
troversy, and  whether  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between 
the  lector  and  his  parish  is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace 
of  the  church.  The  gist  of  the  Avhole  inquiry  is  in  the  first 
jiart  of  it,  and  the  other  would  follow,  one  way  or  the  other, 
as  yon  determine  the  first. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  in  praise  of  the  canon  of  1871.  If 
so  eminent  a  prelate  as  Bishop  White  could  regret  the 
enactment  of  an  almost  similar  canon  in  1804,  and  could 
in  1820,  after  sixteen  years'  experience  nnder  it,  write  that 
it  was  an  evil,  and  that  he  hoped  it  would  be  but  temporary, 
it  would  not  become  me  to  commend  it  now.  But  I  say  of 
the  canon  as  I  have  said  of  the  controversy,  we  must  take 
it  as  we  find  it,  and  deal  witli  it  accordingly.  This  Board 
is  organized  under  its  provisions,  and  I  assume,  as  I  have 
a,  right  to  do,  that  whatever  you  find  the  requirements  of 
the  canon  to  be,  you,  who  hold  your  commission  under  it, 
will  carry  them  into  effect.  Is  it  a  hard  or  impolitic  canon? 
Will  its  requirements  conflict  Avith  what  you  would  wish 
to  do  in  this  particular  case?  ISTo  matter  for  that ;  it  is  the 
law  of  the  case.  You  are  not  responsible  for  the  conse- 
quences of  observing  it.  It  is  an  offspring  of  the  assembled 
wisdom  of  the  church,  after  the  subject  had  been  discussed 
in  the  General  Convention,  and  it  appears  to  me  that  it  re- 
mains to  be  administered  by  you  only  according  to  its 
terms. 

The  canon  may  be  an  impolitic  one.  Ferhaps  it  should 
have  been  entitled  to  'promote  differences  between  ministers 
and  their  congregations.  I  will  not  disagree  with  any  one 
here  upon  such  points.  But  we  must  assume  that  those  who 
made  the  canon  understood  what  they  w^ere  doing,  and 
intended  all  the  natural  and  legitimate  consequences  of 
their  act.  There  was  not  a  lawyer  in  that  convention  who 
did  not  know,  that  just  in  proportion  as  the  legal  grounds 
of  divorce  from  the  bonds  of  matrimony  have  been  in- 
creased, the  number  of  applications  for  divorce  have  been 
increased.  I  presume  also,  that  the  clerical  members  of 
that  bod}',  not  a  few  of  whom  had  preached  earnestly 
against  facile  divorces,  knew  that  the  evil  had  been  brought 
al)Out  by  increasing  the  number  of  legal  invitations  to  them. 
And  so,  when  this  canon  of  1871  was  enacted,  providing  an 


192 

easy  method  of  dissolving  the  connection  between  a  minister 
and  his  congregation,  the  General  Convention  did  not  very 
much  intend  to  discourage  sach  dissolutions.  In  this  con- 
nection I  may  also  appeal  to  the  views  of  an  eminent  con- 
tributor to  the  columns  of  the  Ei)iscopal  Register,  whos^ 
readily  recognized  communication  will  be  found  in  the 
number  of  July  loth,  1871,  over  the  signature  II.  Writing 
upon  the  subject  now  embraced  in  this  canon  of  1871,  he 
says : 

"  We  have  already  intimated  that  the  difference  which 
may  have  given  rise  to  the  desire  on  the  part  of  a  parish  to  be 
relieved  of  the  services  of  its  minister,  and  the  gi'avity  and 
irremediable- character  of  which  the  Bishop  with  his  Presl)y- 
ters  is  the  legitimate  arbiter  and  judge,  need  not  concern  his 
moral  worth,  his  soundness  in  the  faith,  or  his  conformity  to 
the  worship  of  the  church.  A  man  may  be  unsuitable  for  a 
particular  post,  against  whom  no  accusation  of  transgression 
could  be  maintained.  He  may  be  slightly  insane,  or  so  ec- 
centric that  it  were  scarcely  worse  to  be  a  lunatic.  He  may 
be  a  warm  politician  and  as  such,  at  variance  with  the  groat 
body  of  his  people.  He  may  develope,  after  settlement, 
extremes  of  opinion  on  church  policy  or  worship  very  dis- 
tasteful to  his  iiock,  and  destructive  of  his  good  influence 
over  them, — and  in  consideration  of  which  his  Bishop  and 
his  peers  may  be  convinced  that  his  continuance  in  a  cer- 
tain post  is  inexpedient,  while  at  the  same  time  he  has  com- 
mitted no  offence  for  which  he  ought  to  be  brought  to  trial, 
none  which  precludes  his  settlement  in  another  place,  where 
his  peculiarities  would  be  less  obnoxious." 

Tiie  importance  of  this  reference  is  as  showing  what  were 
the  views  of  one  .of  the  Presbyters  who,  in  two  months 
afterwards,  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  General  Conven- 
tion, in  favor  of  passing  the  canon  of  1871,  under  which  you 
are  acting.  And  it  is  in  the  line  of  evidence  that  that  Con- 
vention made  the  canon  for  just  such  a  case  as  is  before  you 
now.  The  same  Presbyter,  at  the  convention,  said  of  the 
canon,  "  Some  such  canon  is  desperately  needed,  not  only  for 
congregations,  but  for  the  protection  of  the  clergy." 

Then  you  have  an  incorrigible  controversy ;  and  you  have 
a  canon  which  favors  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between 
tlie  minister  and  his  parish  when  such  a  controversy  exists. 
It  only  remains  to  inrpilre  whether  there  is  a  well  grounded 
hope  of  a  favorable  termination  of  the  controversy  'i     That 


193 

inquiry  should  be  made  by  you,  I  submit,  in  the  interest  of 
the  church  alone.  There  are  no  parties  before  you  to  be 
tried  for  anything,  or  even  to  be  censured  by  you.  Our 
friends  upon  the  other  side  have  presented  their  case  as  if 
they  supposed  you  had  some  authority  to  deal  with  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  vestry,  and  they  have  indulged  in 
sundry  expletives,  which,  as  they  come  from  the  other  side, 
I  may  call  High  Church  expletives,  against  members  of  our 
Evangelical  vestry.  But  we  have  not  indulged  in  anything 
of  the  kind,  and  as  this  case  tirst  came  to  your  notice  in  a 
temperate  statement,  so  it  shall  end  in  like  manner.  The 
canon  does  not  provide  for  any  discipline  to  be  prescribed 
by  this  Board. 

I  submit  for  your  consideration,  that  there  is  no  present 
hope  for  a  favorable  termination  of  the  unfortunate  contro- 
versy in  this  case,  and  that  no  ground  for  such  a  hope  has 
been  shown.  The  nature  of  the  controversy  forbids  it.  The 
rector  and  the  vestry  have  discordant  views  of  church 
polity,  and  he  stands  in  opposition  to  the  views  which  have 
always  prevailed  in  that  church  from  its  origin.  Ought 
that  to  divide  a  rector  and  vestry?  It  matters  not;  the 
practical  question  is — can  you  cure  it  by  insisting  that  Dr. 
Rumney  shall  remain  pastor  of  the  church?  You  will  not 
thus  convince  any  one  of  error,  or  remove  the  radical  cause 
of  irritation;  and  I  submit  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  Dr. 
Rumney  himself,  to  consign  him  to  another  year  of  such 
antagonism  as  the  last  year  and  a  half  has  witnessed.  Are 
the  vestry  likely  to  yield  ?  I  do  not  see  any  reason  upon, 
which  to  ground  such  a  hope.  The  members  of  that  body 
are  men  of  settled  convictions  upon  the  subject  of  their 
church  polity  ;  they  have  long  been  members  of  Christ 
Church,  and  some  of  them  were  among  its  founders  and 
contributed  to  its  erection,  and  they  do  not  intend  to  be 
driven  away  from  it.  They  are  gentlemen  of  spirit,  who 
do  not  act  hastily,  but,  when  conclusions  are  formed,  act 
positively,  and  are  not  likely  to  yield  against  their  convic- 
tions of  duty.  This  was  doubtless  upon  the  mind  of  my 
colleague  when  he  asked  whether  you  proposed  to  send  the 
rector  and  vestry  back  to  the  scene  of  their  differences, 
and  hold  them  together  there  until  one  or  the  other  should 
revolutionize  the  church,  and  call  that  peacemaking.  You. 
liave  no  well  founded  reason  for  supposing  that  such  a  peace 
project  will  succeed.  Remember  too,  that  such  an  experi- 
13 


194 

mont  would  be  inflicted  upon  pei-sons  who  have  been  cdn- 
cated  in  Christ  Church,  to  be  intolerant  of  church  views 
diiiering  from  their  own,  a  fact  which  abvnidantly  appears 
in  the  statements  read  to  you.  That  also  is  an  impediment 
to  harmony  in  the  church.  But  more  than  that,  you  have 
the  pledge,  over  the  signatures  of  the  voters,  that  the  next 
vestry  shall  be  in  unanimous  opposition  to  Dr.  Rumney.  I 
know  it  has  been  alleged  on  the  other  side,  that  two  or  three 
of  those  signers  are  Baptists  or  Presbyterians ;  but  whether 
that  be  so,  we  know  not,  and  do  not  care.  What  we  do 
know  about  it  is,  that  they  are  pew  holders  and  members  of 
the  corporation  of  Christ  Church,  who  are,  we  contend,  enti- 
tled to  vote  for  vestrymen,  and  that  makes  their  signatures 
to  the  pledge,  as  important  as  any  of  the  others.  It  is 
equally  unimportant  here,  whether  Mr.  Charles  Spencer,  the 
warden  of  Christ  Church,  is  the  same  Charhis  Spencer  who 
is  a  trustee  of  the  Arch  Street  Methodist  Church.  We  know 
that  our  Charles  Spencer  has  been  a  member  of  Christ 
Church  for  sixteen  3'ears  ;  that  he  aided  in  the  erection  of 
the  church  ediiice,  and  is  so  well  confided  in  that  he  is  the 
warden.  Our  friends  on  the  other  side  have  invited  us  into 
quite  a  number  of  these  side  issues,  but  we  decline  them, 
because  they  could  serve  no  better  purpose  than  to  divert 
attention  from  the  only  inquiries  which  the  canon  of  1871 
authorizes  this  Board  of  Reference  to  make.  There  is  one 
purpose,  however,  for  which  these  numerous  subjects  of 
dispute  may  be  used,  and  that  is  as  demonstrating  how 
extended  and  acrimonious  the  controversy  has  become,  and 
how  utterly  hopeless  it  is  to  look  for  a  favorable  termination 
of  it  until  the  connection  between  the  rector  and  his  parish 
is  dissolved. 

I  take  strength  also  from  the  position  assumed  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  rector.  They  have  not  undertaken  to  point 
out  one  ground  of  hope  for  a  favorable  termination  of  this 
controversy  while  Dr.  Rumney  remains  rector  of  Christ 
Church.  They  have  claimed  that  Dr.  Rumney  is  an  Evan- 
gelical minister  in  one  sense  of  the  terra ;  but  in  doing  so, 
they  have  also  shown  that  the  vestry  are  Evangelical  in 
another  sense,  and  thus  they  are  no  nearer  together  than 
before.  They  have  maintained  that  upon  a  count  of  all  the 
families  connected  with  Christ  Church,  and  by  counting  all 
the  members  of  families,  including  the  infants  born  into  those 
families  since  the  controversy  began,  they  have  a  majority 


195 

of  the  congregation  with  them.  But  it  appears  that  by  a 
similar  count,  and  by  excluding  all  under  fifteen  years  of 
age,  the  vestry  have  a  majority  with  them.  It  is  not  very 
perceptible  that  any  useful  end  is  to  be  served  by  such  con- 
tentions as  these,  or  that  they  tend  to  elucidate  the  questions 
which  this  Board  is  to  pass  upon.  What  has  been  said  on 
the  other  side,  about  the  collections  not  made  in  the  church, 
may  be  referred  to  the  same  category.  The  vestry  presented 
to  this  Board,  a  tabular  statement  of  the  collections  made  in 
the  church,  for  specified  objects,  averaged  from  1865  to  1869 
inclusive ;  and,  by  way  of  contrast,  the  collections  in  the 
church,  in  1871,  for  the  same  objects.  The  collections  in  the 
Sunday  schools,  and  contributions  of  members  of  the  church, 
made  outside  the  church,  were  excluded  from  both  state- 
ments. The  contrast  which  this  tabular  statement  exhibited, 
was  rather  striking,  and  it  struck  our  friends  on  the  other 
side  considerably.  It  was  plain  enough  that  the  collections 
in  the  chnrch,  since  Dr.  Rumney  came  there,  had  fallen  off 
largely.  The  statement,  made  from  the  books  of  the  church, 
was  a  stunning  one  ;  it  was  felt,  and  it  drew  hard  words 
from  the  other  side.  But  how  do  they  attempt  to  get  over 
it  ?  Why  first,  by  showing  that  the  vestry's  statement  of 
collections  in  the  church,  is  substantially  correct;  then  by 
adding  to  the  church  collections  of  1871  only,  the  Sunday 
school  collections  of  the  same  year,  and  then  by  adding  to 
those  again,  the  private  personal  contributions  to  special  ob- 
jects, made  outside  the  church,  by  persons  who  are  members 
of  the  church.  It  is  thus  that  they  make  the  church  collec- 
tions of  1871,  appear  to  be  greater  than  those  of  former 
years,  when  they  are  manifestly  very  much  less,  and  the 
statement  of  the  vestry,  is  called  disingenuous.  Take  for 
example,  Mr.  Houston's  contribution  to  the  Evangelical 
Knowledge  Society,  or  Mr.  Drake's,  to  the  Foreign  Missions, 
or  Mr.  Spencer's,  to  the  Evangelical  Education  Society,  as  set 
forth  in  Dr.  Rumney's  answer,  from  the  books  of  the  respect- 
ive Societies.  These  are,  separate  and  apart  from  the  credits 
to  Christ  Church,  credits  to  those  gentlemen  by  name,  for 
their  respective  contributions.  They  did  not,  and  would  not 
make  their  contributions  through  Christ  Church.  Yet, 
against  the  will  and  the  act  of  each  of  these  gentlemen,  we 
are  now  told  for  the  purpose  of  weakening  the  vestry's 
statement,  that  you  should  consider  those  as  parts  of  the  col- 
lections made  in  the  church.     It  would  be  useless  to  pursue 


196 

these  subjects  further,  and  I  have  only  adverted  to  them  ag 
showing  how  difHcult  it  is  to  tind  the  parties  in  agreement 
upon  any  subject  relating  to  their  church  affairs.  It  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  regretted  that  the  controversy  has  become  so  far 
chronic  that  there  appears  to  be  but  one  cure  for  it. 

The  precfedents  read  by  my  colleague,  all  of  tlieui  under  a 
canon  very  similar  to  that  of  1871,  have  been  uniform.  In 
each  of  those  cases  the  minister  was  relieved  of  his  charge, 
and  why  ?  Because  the  inquiry  being  made  in  the  interest 
of  the  church,  and  not  in  the  interest  of  the  parties  to  tlie 
controversy,  it  was  plain  enough  that  the  church  must  be 
the  chief  sufferer  by  a  continuance  of  the  controversy.  Hence, 
if  the  controversy  wns  one  that  could  not  be  healed  at  once, 
it  was  thought  wise  that  the  minister  should  withdraw  from 
it,  and  in  each  of  tliose  cases  the  Board  of  Reference  so  re- 
commended. It  was  doubtless  considered  also,  that  as  the 
clero^yman  could  not  succeed  with  his  work  in  a  divided 
church,  he  should  withdraw  to  a  more  promising  field  of 
labor. 

If  this  Board  of  Reference,  following  the  provisions  of  the 
canon  and  the  precedents,  shall  conclude  that  in  view  of  the 
long  duration  and  incorrigible  nature  of  the  controversy  in 
this  case,  it  is  best  to  recommend  a  dissolution  of  the  con- 
nection between  the  rector  and  his  parish,  you  may  place  the 
parish  upon  terms.  The  vestry  proffered  terms  in  the  be- 
ginning, as  will  be  seen  from  their  statement,  and  have  all 
along  been  willing  and  ready  to  be  liberal.  It  is  not  for  me 
to  attempt  to  prescribe  the  terms.  I  may  suggest,  however, 
that  the  precedents  may  aid  you  in  this  matter.  In  Dr. 
Ogden's  case,  the  Board  of  Reference  imposed  that  the  church 
wdiich  they  recommended  him  to  leave,  sliould  secure  him 
two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  annum  for  life  ;  and  in  Dr. 
Jervis's  case,  the  round  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars  was  im- 
posed. My  clerical  friend  on  the  other  side,  treats  this  as  a 
pecuniary  consideration  to  a  rector  for  giving  up  his  charge, 
and  as  such,  disdains  it.  But  you  may  depend  upon  it,  gen- 
tlemen, that  the  General  Convention  of  the  church  did  not  so 
consider  it  wdien  that  provision  was  inserted  in  the  canon,  or 
it  would  not  be  there.  There  is  a  wide  difierence  between  a 
rector  withdrawing  from  a  parish  under  a  pecuniary  induce- 
ment to  withdraw,  and  a  rector  withdrawing  from  a  sense 
of  duty  to  the  church  at  large,  and  in  obedience  to  the  re- 
commendation of  a  Board   of  Reference  composed    of  his 


197 

brother  Prcshyters,  after  they  have  given  due  consideration 
to  the  suhject.  And  it  is  a  mistake  to  assume  that  the  rec- 
tor would  in  such  case,  withdraw  with  discredit,  for  the 
inquiry  is  only  as  to  his  longer  usefuhiess  in  that  particular 
parish.  His  views  of  church  polity,  the  only  source  of  trouble 
here,  are  not  discreditable  to  Dr.  liumney  ;  nor  does  it  reflect 
upon  him  that  he  and  hid  vestry  are  not  in  accord  on  that 
sul)ject.  A  withdrawal  of  Dr.  Rumney  from  Christ  Church 
npon  terms  imposed  by  this  Board,  would  not,  therefore,  be 
a  withdrawal  in  any  other  interest  than  that  of  the  church 
at  large,  and  could  not  properly  subject  him  to  reflections 
of  discredit.  And  it  may  be  worthy  your  consideration 
also,  that  the  power  of  the  Board  of  Keference  to  impose 
terms  upon  the  parish  in  such  cases,  is  the  only  means  given 
to  them  by  the  canon,  by  which  they  may  discourage  such 
cases,  if  that  be  thought  desirable. 

It  is  gratifying  to  know  that  this  case  has  its  pleasant 
side,  as'well  as  its  painful  one.  The  pleasant  side  is  that  in 
all  this  controversy  there  is  no  accusation  of  Dr.  Rumney, 
and  nothing  urged  to  his  discredit.  The  statement  of  the 
vestry,  whidi  initiated  this  proceeding,  will  be  found  to  be 
a  clear  and  temperate  narrative  of  the  difference  which  had 
grown  up  between  the  rector  and  themselves,  with  reasons 
why  it  should  be  terminated  b\^  Dr.  Rumney's  withdrawal. 
The  painful  side  of  the  case  is,  that  it  should  become  neces- 
sary for  the  sake  of  the  church,  to  bring  and  parade  the  dif- 
ference here,  and  seek  the  action  of  this  Board  to  determine 
it.  You  have  seen  from  the  evidence  presented  here,  that 
the  controversy  is  a  serious  one,  and  that  the  nature  and 
characteristics  of  it  are  such  as  to  leave  no  hope  of  a  favor- 
able termination  of  it  at  present.  If  their  case  is  such  as  the 
proofs  and  statements  appear  to  make  it,  would  it  not  be  un- 
just to  Dr.  Rumney  as  well  as  destruction  to  the  cause  of 
religion  in  Christ  Church,  to  require  him  to  remain  its  rec- 
tor ?  Would  it  not  be  best  to  recommend  that  he  relieve 
himself  from  so  unpleasant  and  unprofitable  a  position  as 
that  which  he  now  occupies?  I  refer  you  again,  gentlemen, 
to  the  provisions  of  the  canon  under  which  you  will  make 
the  inquiries,  and  urge  that  inasmuch  as  it  imposes  the  duty 
upon  you,  you  will  not  for  any  reasons  not  contemplated  by 
the  canon,  fail  to  carry  it  into  effect. 

Upon  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Price's  argument,  the  Board  of 
Presbyters  adjourned,  to  meet  at  the  call  of  their  President. 


FIFTH  DAY'S   rROCEEDINGS. 

The  Board  of  Presbyters  met  in  the  vestry  room  of  the 
Church  of  the  Epiphany,  on  Monday,  March  11th,  1872,  at 
3  o'clock  p.  M. 

Present — The  Rev.  Dr.  Beasley,  Rev.  Dr.  Yarnall,  Rev. 
Dr.  Miller,  Rev.  Mr.  Perry. 

The  complainants  and  their  counsel. 

The  respondent  and  his  counsel. 

The  proceedings  were  opened  with  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Beasley. 

The  decision  of  the  Board  was  then  read  by  the  chairman, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Beasley,  as  follows: 

The  Board  of  Reference,  selected  by  virtue  of  the  terms 
specified  in  Canon  IV.  "  Of  difierences  between  ministers 
and  their  congregations,  and  of  the  dissolution  of  a  pastoral 
connection,"  having  heard  and  considered  the  allegations 
and  proofs  in  a  controversy  between  the  vestry  of  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  and  the  Rev.  Theodore  S.  Rumcey, 
D.  D.,  rector  of  said  parish,  have  reached  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion ;  and  as  this  ease  is  the  first  one  presented,  certainly 
within  this  diocese,  the  board  will  briefly  state  their  views 
of  the  duty  imposed  upon  them  by  the  canon,  and  then  the 
opinion  which,  after  mature  deliberation,  they  have  formed 
concerning  the  present  controversy.  The  object  of  the  canon 
is  undoubtedly  to  settle  in  an  equitable  manner  the  questida 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  connection.  The  cause 
which  may  or  may  not  lead  to  such  a  result  is  a  difference 
or  differences  between  ministers  and  their  congreg(itions. 

The  history  of  the  canon  makes  it  evident  that  it  is  in- 
tended for  the  relief  of  a  congregation  whose  pastor,  from 
some  cause  not  involving  his  moral  or  Christian  character, 
is  disqualified  for  usefulness  in  the  position  he  occupies,  as, 
for  instance,  to  quote  the  words  of  Bishop  "White,  ''  From  a 

(198) 


199 

leaning  to  practices  very  ditferent  from  those  of  his  church, 
or  on  account  of  insanity,  or  hastiness  of  speech  and  temper, 
such  as  alienates  from  him  the  affections  of  his  flock  and 
weakens  his  influence,  or  by  reason  of  great  peculiarities  of 
temperament,  or  of  an  overbearing  disposition,  or  a  desire  to 
take  all  the  authority  upon  himself  in  the  management  of 
the  temporal  concerns  of  the  congregation." 

It  is  fair  to  assume  that  this  canon  is  not  intended  to  be 
in  conflict  with  the  other  enactments  of  the  church ;  that 
its  object  is  to  promote  the  peace  and  edification  of  the 
members  of  our  churches,  and  to  protect  both  clergy  and 
laity  from  any  invasion  of  their  rights  so  long  as  they 
continue  to  show  a  faithful  regard  to  the  orderly  and  estab- 
lished usages  of  the  church,  its  forms  of  worship  and  its 
statements  of  doctrine,  and  afford,  both  in  life  and  conversa- 
tion, a  wholesome  example  to  the  flock  of  Christ. 

It  is  a  settled  principle  of  the  civil  law  that  a  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  who  associate  themselves  together  for  the 
worship  of  Almighty  God,  according  to  a  particular  form  of 
faith,  shall  not  only  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  their 
rights,  guaranteed  by  the  charter  and  canon  of  the  church, 
Init  that  this  protection  shall  extend  to  a  single  faithful 
member,  who  may  hold  the  church  property  against  any 
number  of  persons,  no  matter  who  they  may  be,  and  who 
may  join  together  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  particu- 
lar form  of  faith  and  church  worship  heretofore  established. 

In  the  case  before  us  we  have  the  statement  of  the  vestry 
of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  concerning  their  controversy 
with  the  rector. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that,  for  ordinary  purposes,  and  in 
a  general  way,  the  vestry  represent  the  congregation.  But 
they  may  not  do  so,  and  hence,  in  the  second  section,  the 
canon  declares  that  a  majority  of  the  Presbyters,  in  a  certain 
contingency,  may  recommend  to  the  Bishop  a  dissolution  of 
the  pastoral  connection,  not  only  when  there  is  no  hope  of  a 
favorable  termination  of  the  controversy,  but  when  they  are 


200 

also  of  the  opinion  "  that  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  be- 
tween such  rector  or  assistant  minister,  and  his  parish  or 
congregation,  is  necessary  to  restore  the  peace  "of  the  church 
and  promotes  its  prosperity." 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  prove  not  only  that  difier- 
cnces  exist,  but  also  that  they  att'ect  the  peace  of  a  church 
and  its  prosperity.  It  must  be  shown,  moreover,  that  the 
controversy  is  not  only  between  the  vestry  and  the  rector, 
but  that  the  vestry  herein  represents  the  majority  of  the 
congregation. 

To  apply  these  principles  to  the  case  before  us : — • 

First.  We  have  the  allegation  that  the  parish  of  Christ 
Church,  Germantown,  was  founded  as  a  Low  Church,  as  a 
representative  of  the  evangelical  party  in  the  church.  But 
it  was  also  founded  as  a  parish  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  There  is  but  one  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country,  and  it  is  bound  tegether  by  a  constitution  and 
canons,  General  and  Diocesan.  Whatever  motives  may  have 
influenced  the  founders  of  this  particular  parish,  every  mem- 
ber of  it  owes  allegiance  to  a  church  one  and  indivisible,  the 
"  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States."  The 
Board,  therefore,  in  their  othcial  capacity,  are  unable  to 
recognize  this  parish  as  owing  its  allegiance  to  a  particular 
party  rather  than  to  the  whole  church. 

Nor  can  we  perceive  any  evidence  from  which  we  can  deter- 
mine that  this  rector  was  "  unseen,  unknown,  unheard,"  in 
the  sense  in  wliich  these  words  are  used  by  the  complainants  ; 
for,  although  he  was  unknown  hy  the  members  of  the  con- 
gregation at  the  time  of  his  election,  before  he  entered  upon 
his  duties  as  rector,  an  abundant  opportunity  was  oflered  for 
objection  to  him,  and  none  was  then  made. 

It  is  alleged  that  he  has  admitted  to  his  pulpit  others  than 
those  known  as  evangelical  ministers.  It  does  not  appear 
that  the  persons  so  admitted  were  not  clergymen  of  respect- 
able standing  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  there- 
fore this  cannot  be  urixed  as  a  fault  afrainst   the  rector.     It 


201 

appears,  moreover,  that  tliese  admissions  were  in  accordance 
"vvitli  the  desire  expressed  by  the  Bishop,  whose  godly  coun- 
sel the  rector'  is  bound  to  respect. 

IS'or  does  it  seem  to  the  Board  that  the  allegation  is  sus- 
tained that  Dr.  Rumney  himself  is  not  an  evangelical  divine 
in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  that  term. 

The  claim  to  this  distinction  is  definitely  made  for  the 
rector  by  his  counsel  (p.  12),  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  with 
his  approbation  and  consent ;  and,  certainly,  no  higher  testi- 
mony can  be  asked  on  behalf  of  any  clerg^^man  than  such 
words  as  these  from  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese : — "  I  have 
confidence  in  yonr  piety,  your  honesty,  your  fidelity  to 
Gospel  truth,  and  in  your  single  desire  to  win  souls  to 
Christ." 

The  Board  of  Reference  do  not  find  the  allegation  well 
sustained  that  the  rector  has  been  wanting  in  his  support  of 
the  evangelical  societieg  of  the  church.  The  evidence  on 
the  other  hand  is  that  he  caused  regular  collections  to 
be  made  in  the  church  on  their  behalf.  ISTor  has  it  been 
maintained  or  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Board  that 
the  church  is  falling  oH:',  or  that  it  is  in  a  paralyzed  condition. 
On  the  contrary,  the  number  of  pews  and  sittings  that  are 
rented,  the  number  of  those  confirmed,  and  of  the  scholars 
attendant  upon  the  Sunday-school,  and  the  amount  of  the 
gifts  to  charitable  objects  from  the  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion, all  testify  to  the  flourishing  and  prosperous  state  of  the 
parish. 

jSTo  proof  has  been  given  that  a  fair  majority  of  the  con- 
gregation desire  of  their  own  accord  the  dissolution  of  the 
pastoral  connection.  It  is  not,  therefore,  established  that 
the  present  vestry  in  this  respect  represent  the  larger  portion 
of  the  congregation. 

The  Board  feel  compelled  to  add  that,  while  the  vestry 
have  presented  no  charges  against  the  rector,  nothing  in  this 
whdle  investigation  has  caused  them  to  question  his  amiable 
and  conciliatory  disposition,  his  sympathy  with  views  gen- 


202 

erally  known  as  Evangelical,  nor  his  eminent  qualifications 
for  usefulness  in  the  parish  over  which  he  is  placed. 

Taking  also  into  consideration  the  Christian  character  and 
high  standing  of  the  gentlemen  who  compose  the  majority 
of  the  present  vestry,  the  Board  of  Reference  are  of  opinion 
that  a  favorable  termination  of  the  controversy  may  be 
hoped  for.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  any  but  grave  and 
reasonable  causes  of  alienation  can  prevent  the  "  hope  of  a 
favorable  termination  of  such  a  controversy"  as  may  exist 
between  the  pastor  and  people  of  one  of  our  congregations. 
The  conviction  on  the  mind  of  one  or  both  of  the  parties  that 
it  must  be  irreconcilable,  is  by  no  means  satisfactory  proof 
that  it  cannot  be  terminated. 

The  continuance  may  have  been  prolonged  by  the  expecta- 
tion that  it  must  ultimately  secure  the  removal  of  the  rector. 
In  that  case  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Presbyters  that 
there  are  no  causes  of  controversy  but  such  as  Christian  men 
should  remove,  for  the  love  of  charity,  must  be  accepted  as 
a  most  probable  assurance  that  peace  will  be  restored.  We 
must  necessarily  assume  that  they  are  open  to  the  conviction 
that  they  have  unduly  magniHed  the  importance  of  the  cir- 
cumstances wdiich  have  been  the  source  of  contention.  To 
imagine  that  they  cannot  make  great  sacrifice  of  prejudice 
and  of  temper  when  they  are  demanded,  would  be  an  assault 
on  their  religious  character. 

We  cannot  weigh  the  disturbance  between  pastors  and 
members  of  our  churches  in  order  to  judge  of  their  probable 
continuance,  through  human  infirmity,  as  we  would  those 
of  men  who  do  not  profess  to  submit  themselves  to  the  will 
of  God.  How  great  would  be  the  wrong  which  we  should 
thus  inflict !  Thus  doing,  we  should  be  forgetful  of  the 
Power  who  rules  over  the  breasts  of  all  who  seek  Ilis  help. 

We  should  forget  His  precepts  who  commanded  a  holy 
charity,  and  all  other  means  which  He  has  provided  in  His 
love  to  produce  meekness,  and  that  pure  heart,  by  means  of 
which  we  love  one  another  fervently. 


203 

For  the  reasons  assigned,  the  Board  decides  that  a  disso- 
lution of  the  connection  between  the  Rev.  Theodore  S.  Runi- 
ney,  D.  D.,  rector  of  Christ  Church,  Germantown,  and  his 
parish  or  congregation,  is  not  necessary  either  to  restore  the 
peace  of  the  church,  or  to  promote  its  prosperity. 

F.  W.  Beasley, 
Thomas  C.  Yarnall, 
Thomas  F.  Davies, 
James  Be  W.  Perry,  Jr. 

The  Rev.  Br.  Miller  dissented  from  the  decision  of  the 
Board. 
The  Board  then  adjourned  sine  die. 


/ 


/ 


I  V 


